MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200263395 · doi:10.1139/as-2021-0012

Optical design challenges of subnivean camera trapping under extreme Arctic conditions

2021· article· en· W4200263395 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Anastasiia Pusenkova, Mathilde Poirier, Davood Kalhor, Tigran Galstian, Gilles Gauthier, Xavier Maldague

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsCenter for Northern StudiesUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaArcticNetCanada First Research Excellence FundPolar Knowledge CanadaNatural Resources CanadaUniversité Laval
KeywordsArcticSnowCamera trapSoftware deploymentEnvironmental scienceTrap (plumbing)Computer sciencePopulationRemote sensingLens (geology)MeteorologyGeographyOceanographyGeologyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Camera trapping is widely used in different ecological studies and is particularly important for remote locations and extreme environments. However, the application of camera traps in Arctic regions remains very limited. One of the challenges is the formation of hoar on the lens of cameras. In this article, we propose a solution to address this problem by changing the camera parameters and its position in order to optimize the camera trap for long-term subnivean deployment in the Canadian Arctic. Preliminary field tests show that this approach allows tracking lemmings in the frozen environment without natural light or external electrical power supply, where the direct observations are impossible for the most part of the year. We obtained the first videos of lemmings under the snow during the Arctic winter. Extending the observational network of the newly designed camera traps will help to better understand lemming population dynamics. The demonstrated approach is also promising for other polar applications.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.161 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic ScienceSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207