Comparative woodland caribou population surveys in Slate Islands Provincial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: We evaluated three methods of estimating population size of woodland caribou (boreal ecotype) on the Slate Islands in northern Ontario. Located on the north shore of Lake Superior, the Slate Islands provide a protected and closed population with very limited predator influence that is ideal for a comparison of survey methods. Our objective was to determine the costs and benefits of three population estimation techniques: (1) forward looking infrared (FLIR) technol-ogy to count the number of caribou on regular-spaced transects flown by fixed-wing aircraft; (2) observers to count the number of caribou seen or heard while walking random transects in the spring; and, (3) mark-recapture sampling of caribou pellets using DNA analysis. FLIR and the genetics 3-window approach gave much tighter confidence intervals but similar population estimates were found from all three techniques based on their overlapping confidence intervals. There are various costs and benefits to each technique that are discussed further. Understanding the costs and benefits of different population estimation techniques is necessary to develop cost-effective programs for inventorying and monitor-ing this threatened species not only on the Slate Islands but for other populations as well.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".