Population estimates of North American shorebirds, 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We re-assessed the population size and trend of 52 species and 75 taxa of shorebirds that occur in North America by reviewing published papers, soliciting unpublished data, and seeking the opinions of experts. New information resulted in changing population estimates for 35 of the 71 taxa that could be compared directly to the estimates published in 2006; from this comparison, 28 estimates increased and seven decreased. Almost all of the increases (88%) were the result of more comprehensive surveys being conducted or re-analyses of existing data rather than actual increases in numbers. Retaining the previous estimate was almost always due to a lack of new information. Recent trend analysis indicates that many shorebird populations have stabilized in recent years after large declines during the early 1980s and mid-1990s. Although many shorebird populations listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. and Canadian governments have increasing population trends, none have reached recovery targets. Information on population trends remains virtually unknown for 25% of the shorebirds occurring in North America, and surveys are needed to determine the state of these populations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".