MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084408974 · doi:10.1071/wr19232

Determining marine mammal detection functions for a stationary land-based survey site

2020· article· en· W3084408974 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eric M. Keen, Janie Wray, Benjamin Hendricks, Éadin O’Mahony, Chris R. Picard, Hussein M. Alidina

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsWorld Wildlife Fund CanadaGovernment of British ColumbiaVancouver Native Health Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPorpoisePosterior probabilityPrior probabilitySampling (signal processing)StatisticsRange (aeronautics)Bayesian probabilityStatistical powerComputer scienceRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceEcologyMathematicsGeographyBiologyEngineeringDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Context The shore-based survey is a common, non-invasive, and low-cost method in marine mammal science, but its scientific applications are currently limited. Such studies typically target populations whose distributions are not random with respect to nearshore sites and involve repeated scans of the same area from single, stationary platforms. These circumstances prohibit the use of classic distance sampling techniques for estimating animal densities or distributions, particularly the derivation of a detection function that describes the probability of detecting targets at various distances from the observer. Aims Here, we present a technique for estimating land-based detection functions, as well as quantifying uncertainty in their parameterisation, on the basis of the range-specific variability of observations from one scan to the next. Methods This Bayesian technique uses Monte Carlo simulation to determine the likelihood of thousands of candidate detection functions, then conducts weighted sampling to generate a posterior distribution estimate of the detection function parameterisation. We tested the approach with both archival and artificial datasets built from known detection functions that reflect whale and porpoise detectability. Key results When the base distribution of targets was random, the whale detection function was estimated without error (i.e. the difference of the median of the posterior and the true value was 0.00), and the porpoise detection function was estimated with an error equal to 4.23% of the true value. When the target base distribution was non-random, estimation error remained low (2.57% for targets concentrated offshore, 1.14% when associated with nearshore habitats). When applied to field observations of humpback whales and Dall’s porpoises from a land-based study in northern British Columbia, Canada, this technique yielded credible results for humpback whales, but appeared to underestimate the detectability of Dall’s porpoises. Conclusion The findings presented here indicate that this approach to detection function estimation is appropriate for long-running surveys in which scan regularity is high and the focus is on large, slow-moving, low herd-size, and easily detectable species. Implications The derivation of a detection function is a critical step in density estimation. The methodology presented here empowers land-based studies to contribute to quantitative monitoring and assessment of marine mammal populations in coastal habitats.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife ResearchSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207