Assessing the suitability of a one‐time sampling event for close‐kin mark‐recapture: A caribou case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abundance estimation is frequently an objective of conservation and monitoring initiatives for threatened and other managed populations. While abundance estimation via capture–mark–recapture or spatially explicit capture–recapture is now common, such approaches are logistically challenging and expensive for species such as boreal caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ), which inhabit remote regions, are widely dispersed, and exist at low densities. Fortunately, the recently developed ‘close‐kin mark–recapture’ (CKMR) framework, which uses the number of kin pairs obtained within a sample to generate an abundance estimate, eliminates the need for multiple sampling events. As a result, some caribou managers are interested in using this method to generate an abundance estimate from a single, non‐invasive sampling event for caribou populations. We conducted a simulation study using realistic boreal caribou demographic rates and population sizes to assess how population size and the proportion of the population surveyed impact the accuracy and precision of single‐survey CKMR‐based abundance estimates. Our results indicated that abundance estimates were biased and highly imprecise when very small proportions of the population were sampled, regardless of the population size. However, the larger the population size, the smaller the required proportion of the population surveyed to generate both accurate and reasonably precise estimates. Additionally, we also present a case study in which we used the CKMR framework to generate annual female abundance estimates for a small caribou population in Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canada, from 2006 to 2015 and compared them to existing published capture–mark–recapture‐based estimates. Both the accuracy and precision of the annual CKMR‐based abundance estimates varied across years and were sensitive to the proportion of pairwise kinship comparisons which yielded a mother–offspring pair. Taken together, our study demonstrates that it is possible to generate CKMR‐based abundance estimates from a single sampling event for small caribou populations, so long as a sufficient sampling intensity can be achieved.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".