Modeling movements improves capture–recapture estimates for mobile species with sparse data: Polar bears ( <i>Ursus maritimus</i> ) in <scp>Viscount Melville</scp> sound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wildlife management requires estimates of demographic parameters that are difficult to obtain for mobile species at low densities. Biased parameter estimates often result from capture–recapture (CR) studies due to small sample sizes and unequal recapture probabilities, the latter of which can be caused by animal movements with respect to the sampling area. We developed a multistate CR model designed to minimize biases by including multiple data types (capture, harvest, natural mortality, and telemetry) and accounting for temporary emigration. We applied the model to data collected intensively from 2012 to 2014, and intermittently since the 1970s, for the Viscount Melville (VM) subpopulation of polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) in the Canadian Arctic. The number of bears within the VM subpopulation boundary likely increased from an average of 145 (Bayesian 95% credible interval [CRI] [109, 221]) in 1989–1992 to 235 (95% CRI [148, 569]) in 2012–2014. Survival probability increased for all sex and age classes except adult females, for which estimates declined due to unknown reasons. Polar bear movements exhibited Markovian dependence with approximately 28% of the subpopulation located outside of the sampling area each spring. This contributed to inaccurate parameter estimates when using a simpler, single‐state CR model that only included capture data. Although the interpretation of demographic status was complicated by statistical uncertainty and changes in study design, our findings suggest that—as of 2014—the VM polar bear subpopulation had likely recovered from an earlier period of overharvest, was stable, and had not exhibited detectable negative effects of climate warming.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".