A flexible framework for spatial capture-recapture with unknown identities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Camera traps or acoustic recorders are often used to sample wildlife populations. When animals can be individually identified, these data can be used with spatial capture-recapture (SCR) methods to assess populations. However, obtaining animal identities is often labor-intensive and not always possible for all detected animals. To address this problem, we formulate SCR, including acoustic SCR, as a marked Poisson process, comprising a single counting process for the detections of all animals and a mark distribution for what is observed (eg, animal identity, detector location). The counting process applies equally when it is animals appearing in front of camera traps and when vocalizations are captured by microphones, although the definition of a mark changes. When animals cannot be uniquely identified, the observed marks arise from a mixture of mark distributions defined by the animal activity centers and additional characteristics. Our method generalizes existing latent identity SCR models and provides an integrated framework that includes acoustic SCR. We apply our method to estimate density from a camera trap study of fisher (Pekania pennanti) and an acoustic survey of Cape Peninsula moss frog (Arthroleptella lightfooti). We also test it through simulation. We find latent identity SCR with additional marks such as sex or time of arrival to be a reliable method for estimating animal density.
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 | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".