MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317368098 · doi:10.1002/2688-8319.12204

A field test of R package <scp>GPSeqClus</scp> : For establishing animal location clusters

2023· article· en· W4317368098 on OpenAlexaffabout
H. Dean Cluff, L. David Mech

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Solutions and Evidence · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Northwest TerritoriesIndustry, Tourism and Investment
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsCanisGeographyGlobal Positioning SystemPredationCartographyEcologyBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ability to track animals with Global Positioning System (GPS) collars opened an enormous potential for studying animal movements and behaviour in their natural environment. One such endeavour is to identify clusters of GPS locations as a way to estimate predator kill rate. Clapp et al. (2021) developed an R package ( GPSeqClus ) to assess a location dataset based on user‐defined parameters to identify clusters and their characteristics. These characteristics can then help to distinguish resting‐site clusters from kill sites of their large (&gt;50 kg) prey. We identified location clusters of an adult male wolf Canis lupus on Ellesmere Island, Nunavut, Canada in July 2009 and tracked him until he died in April 2010. Identifying location clusters was challenging because the collar only obtained two GPS locations per day (12 h apart). In July 2010, we searched 30 of 52 location‐clusters we identified as kill/scavenge sites and found 17 of them as such, given they had muskox Ovibos moschatus or caribou Rangifer tarandus pearyi remains nearby. We also documented five wolf rendezvous sites, two den sites, and the wolf's death site to total 60 location‐clusters in all. We used a two‐step process in testing the R Package GPSeqClus (hereafter GPSeqClus ): (1) compare the number of clusters our method discerned with the number identified by the new algorithm, and (2) compare the number of biologically significant clusters (e.g. den sites, kill/feeding sites) we found with the number the new algorithm located. We made these tests with GPSeqClus by varying the search radius, number of days at a site, and minimum number of locations required for a cluster. GPSeqClus compared well to our technique, with the best sub‐algorithm among the 25 we tested only missing three of our identified clusters and yielding six additional clusters. GPSeqClus identified 16 of the 17 confirmed sites of remains, all wolf home sites, and the wolf's carcass site. Identifying clusters using a 500‐m search radius, a 1.5‐day window, and a minimum of two GPS locations per cluster was suitable for a coarse GPS acquisition rate of two locations per day when prey are large, such as muskox or caribou. Given that GPSeqClus performed well with our coarse location dataset, we expect it will also perform even better with a collar acquiring more than two locations per day. Having a field‐tested utility such as GPSeqClus will enhance carnivore predation studies elsewhere.

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)0.007
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.839

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological Solutions and EvidenceSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207