Behaviourally mediated biases in transect surveys: a predation risk sensitivity approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variation in the behaviour of individuals or species, particularly their propensity to avoid or approach human observers, their conveyances (e.g., cars), or their proxy devices (e.g., drones) has been recognized as a source of bias in transect counts. However, there has been little attempt to predict the likelihood or magnitude of such biases. Behavioural ecology provides a rich source of theory to develop a general framework for doing so. For example, if animals perceive observers as predators, then the extensive body of research on responses of prey to their predators may be applied to this issue. Here we survey the literature on flight initiation distance (the distance from a predator or disturbance stimulus at which prey flee) for a variety of taxa to suggest which characteristics of the animal, the observer, and the environment may create negatively biased counts. We also consider factors that might cause prey to approach observers, creating positive bias, and discuss when and why motivation for both approach and avoidance might occur simultaneously and how animals may resolve such trade-offs. Finally, we discuss the potential for predicting the extent of the behaviourally mediated biases that may be expected in transect counts and consider ways of dealing with them.
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 | 0.016 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".