MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220757548 · doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02080

Review of field methods for monitoring Asian bears

2022· article· en· W4220757548 on OpenAlex
Michael F. Proctor, David L. Garshelis, Prachi Thatte, Robert Steinmetz, Brian Crudge, Bruce N. McLellan, William J. McShea, Dusit Ngoprasert, Muhammad Ali Nawaz, Siew Te Wong, Sandeep Sharma, Angela K. Fuller, Nishith Dharaiya, Karine E. Pigeon, Gabriella Fredriksson, Dajun Wang, Sheng Li, Mei-Hsiu Hwang

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Ecology and Conservation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Forests
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsOccupancyPopulationThreatened speciesEnvironmental resource managementAbundance (ecology)Computer scienceEcologyGeographyData scienceEnvironmental scienceHabitatBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient and effective monitoring methods are required to assess population status and gauge efficacy of conservation actions for threatened species. Here we review the spectrum of field methods useful for monitoring distribution, occupancy, abundance, and population trend for the five species of Asian terrestrial bears. Methods reviewed include expert opinion, local knowledge, bear sign, visual observations, camera traps, DNA-based methods (hair and scat derived), and radio telemetry. We examine the application of each method in terms of realizing specific

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.299 · 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