The curse of observer experience: Error in noninvasive genetic sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Noninvasive genetic sampling (NGS) is commonly used to study elusive or rare species where direct observation or capture is difficult. Little attention has been paid to the potential effects of observer bias while collecting noninvasive genetic samples in the field, however. Over a period of 7 years, we examined whether different observers (n = 58) and observer experience influenced detection, amplification rates, and correct species identification of 4,836 gray wolf (Canis lupus) fecal samples collected in Idaho and Yellowstone National Park, USA and southwestern Alberta, Canada (2008-2014). We compared new observers (n = 33) to experienced observers (n = 25) and hypothesized experience level would increase the overall success of using NGS techniques in the wild. In contrast to our hypothesis, we found that new individuals were better than experienced observers at detecting and collecting wolf scats and correctly identifying wolf scats from other sympatric carnivores present in the study areas. While adequate training of new observers is crucial for the successful use of NGS techniques, attention should also be directed to experienced observers. Observer experience could be a curse because of their potential effects on NGS data quality arising from fatigue, boredom or other factors. The ultimate benefit of an observer to a project is a combination of factors (i.e., field savvy, local knowledge), but project investigators should be aware of the potential negative effects of experience on NGS sampling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.070 | 0.211 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".