Literature compilation for: The rise of animal biotelemetry and genetics research data integration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advancement and availability of innovative animal biotelemetry and genomic technologies are improving our understanding of how the movements of individuals influence gene flow within and between populations and ultimately drive evolutionary and ecological processes. There is a growing body of work that is integrating what were once disparate fields of biology, and here we reviewed the published literature up until January 2023 (139 papers) to better understand the drivers of this research and how it is improving our knowledge of animal biology. The review showed that the predominant drivers for this research were: i) understanding how individual-based movements affect animal populations, ii) analyzing the relationship between genetic relatedness and social structuring, and iii) studying how the landscape affects the flow of genes, and how this is impacted by environmental change. However, there was a divergence between taxa as to the most prevalent research aim, and the methodologies applied. We also found that after 2010 there was an increase in studies that integrated the two data types using innovative statistical techniques instead of analyzing the data independently using traditional statistics from the respective fields. This new approach greatly improved our understanding of the link between the individual, the population, and the environment and is being used to better conserve and manage species. We discuss the challenges and limitations, as well as the potential for growth and diversification of this research approach. The paper provides a guide for researchers who wish to consider applying these disparate disciplines and advancing the field.
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 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.114 | 0.078 |
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".