Developing cost-effective monitoring protocols for track-surveys: an empirical assessment using a Canada lynx Lynx canadensis dataset spanning 16 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dataset contains the necessary R codes to run the analyses in the article: Dri, G. F., Blomberg, E. Hunter, M. L., Vashon, J., Mortelliti, A. Developing cost-effective monitoring protocols for track-surveys: an empirical assessment using a Canada lynx Lynx canadensis dataset spanning 16 years. Biological Conservation 276, 109793 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109793 The detection history was collected by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and will be available upon request. Please contact the authors if you would like to collaborate on a project using the data. If additional comments or questions arise, please contact Gabriela Franzoi Dri (gabriela.franzoi@maine.edu), Erik Blomberg (erik.blomberg@maine.edu), or Alessio Mortelliti (alessio.mortelliti@maine.edu)
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".