Population density of sitatunga in riverine wetland habitats
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates of population density of mammals are critical data for effective management. Estimating density is complicated if the species of interest has cryptic markings and occupies dense habitat. Sitatunga is such a species, specially adapted to the dense swamps and marshes of sub-Saharan Africa, where traditional population survey techniques have been ineffective. In this study, we used camera traps to estimate density of sitatunga in central Uganda using both spatial capture-recapture methods and time in front of the camera (TIFC). We collected data in three years, 2015–2017. The TIFC model resulted in density estimates similar to the spatial capture-recapture models, without needing information on movement or individual identification. However, spatial capture-recapture models provide an estimate of movement and home range, which is of interest to management. For sitatunga, spatial capture-recapture models revealed higher movement parameters and higher heterogeneity in movement than previously reported. These results illustrate the utility of camera traps for a cryptic species in dense habitats, and provide a potential alternative to spatial capture-recapture methods.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it