Hierarchical model analysis of the Atlantic Flyway Breeding Waterfowl Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We used log‐linear hierarchical models to analyze data from the Atlantic Flyway Breeding Waterfowl Survey. The survey has been conducted by state biologists each year since 1989 in the northeastern United States from Virginia north to New Hampshire and Vermont. Although yearly population estimates from the survey are used by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for estimating regional waterfowl population status for mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), black ducks (Anas rubripes), wood ducks (Aix sponsa), and Canada geese (Branta canadensis), they are not routinely adjusted to control for time of day effects and other survey design issues. The hierarchical model analysis permits estimation of year effects and population change while accommodating the repeated sampling of plots and controlling for time of day effects in counting. We compared population estimates from the current stratified random sample analysis to population estimates from hierarchical models with alternative model structures that describe year to year changes as random year effects, a trend with random year effects, or year effects modeled as 1‐year differences. Patterns of population change from the hierarchical model results generally were similar to the patterns described by stratified random sample estimates, but significant visibility differences occurred between twilight to midday counts in all species. Controlling for the effects of time of day resulted in larger population estimates for all species in the hierarchical model analysis relative to the stratified random sample analysis. The hierarchical models also provided a convenient means of estimating population trend as derived statistics from the analysis. We detected significant declines in mallard and American black ducks and significant increases in wood ducks and Canada geese, a trend that had not been significant for 3 of these 4 species in the prior analysis. We recommend using hierarchical models for analysis of the Atlantic Flyway Breeding Waterfowl Survey. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".