A new scoring system for use in capture–recapture studies for bowhead whales photographed with drones
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
Effective management of animal populations requires knowledge of life history parameters and estimates of population abundance. One method commonly used to estimate abundance is capture–recapture analyses of photographs. Small, relatively inexpensive, rotary-wing drones have become an effective platform for obtaining high-quality aerial photographs of whales. To conduct capture–recapture analyses the animal needs to be defined as marked or unmarked and the photographs must be of high quality. While a system for scoring quality and markedness has previously been developed for bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus Linnaeus, 1758) ( Rugh et al. 1998 . Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 48: 501–512), a revised scoring system was needed to incorporate increased information in photographs taken by drones. We present a revised scoring system that enlarges two of the previously defined areas of the whale examined for markings and incorporates smaller markings into the definition of marked whales. We scored 30 whales using the previous criteria and the revised criteria developed in this paper. More whales were identified as marked (23%) and mark scores were higher for 30% of the zones scored using the new system. Increasing the number of marked whales during capture–recapture studies increases the precision of estimated parameters and permits us to make those estimates with smaller samples of photographs.
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