MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390455260 · doi:10.1515/mammalia-2022-0131

Using photo by-catch data to reliably estimate spotted hyaena densities over time

2023· article· en· W4390455260 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Roberts‎, Dave J. Druce, Nokubonga Mgqatsa, Daniel M. Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueMammalia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsCascades (Canada)
FundersNational Research Foundation
KeywordsCrocuta crocutaCarnivoreGuildCamera trapGeographyEcologyAbundance (ecology)PopulationPredationDemographyBiologyHabitatPanthera

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Protected areas are becoming increasingly isolated refugia for large carnivores but remain critical for their survival. Spotted hyaenas (Crocuta crocuta) are important members of the African large carnivore guild but, like other members of the guild, routinely come into conflict with people because of their large home ranges that are not always confined to protected areas. To effectively conserve spotted hyaena populations, it is paramount to monitor their abundance through reliable and cost-effective techniques. We estimated the density of spotted hyaenas in Hluhluwe–iMfolozi Park (HiP), South Africa using camera trap images and a spatially explicit capture-recapture (SECR) framework between 2013 and 2018. We estimated an average of 18.29 ± 3.27 spotted hyaenas per 100 km2 between 2013 and 2018, with an annual estimated high of 20.83/100 km2 in 2014 and a low of 11.98/100 km2 in 2015. Our results demonstrate that camera trap by-catch data can be used for estimating spotted hyaena densities over time. We believe that given the widespread use and deployment of camera traps across Africa, collaborative efforts to use existing data to improve regional and continental estimates and population trends for spotted hyaenas should be a priority.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMammaliaSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207