Data from: When can model-based estimates replace surveys of wildlife populations that span many discrete management units?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monitoring widely distributed species on a budget presents challenges for the spatio-temporal allocation of survey effort. When there are multiple discrete units to monitor, survey alternatives such as model-based estimates can be useful to fill information-gaps but may not reliably reflect biological complexity and change. The spatio-temporal allocation of survey effort that minimizes uncertainty for the greatest number of units within a budget can help to ensure monitoring efforts are optimized. We used aerial survey-based population estimates of moose (Alces alces) across 30 Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) in Ontario, Canada to parameterize simulated populations and test the performance of different monitoring scenarios in capturing WMU-specific annual variation and trends. Firstly, we tested scenarios that prioritized conducting a survey for a unit based on one of three management criteria: population state, population uncertainty, or number of years between surveys. Also incorporated in the decision framework were WMU-specific costs and annual budget constraints. Secondly, we tested how using model-based estimates to fill information-gaps improved population and trend estimates. Lastly, we assessed how the utility (based on minimizing population uncertainty) of using a model-based estimate rather than conducting a survey was impacted by population density, severity of environmental stressors, and years since the last survey. Interval-based monitoring that minimized the number of years between surveys captured accurate trends for the highest number of WMUs, but annual variation was poorly captured regardless of management criteria prioritized. Using model-based estimates to fill information gaps improved trend estimation. Further, the utility of conducting a survey increased with time since the last survey and was greater for populations with low densities when the severity of environmental stressors was high, while being greater for populations with high densities when environmental severity was low. Overall, the utility of aerial survey monitoring was strongly associated with WMU-specific monitoring precision and the predictive power of model-based estimates. If long-term trends are evident then there is greater value in using alternatives such as model-based predictions to replace surveys, but model-based estimates may be a poor substitute when there is strong annual variation and when using a simple model.
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 | 0.020 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".