New methods for assessing Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat: Air photo interpretation and low-level aerial surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This extension note summarizes the application of two new methods that were developed to assess the quality of forest habit that Marbled Murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) use for nesting in British Columbia: air photo interpretation and low-level aerial surveys. Both methods use comparable sixlevel ranking systems that are based on the availability of forest attributes deemed important for nesting murrelets. The methods were developed and refined through preliminary work done in many varied coastal regions in British Columbia; they were designed to complement each other and be applicable to either small patches (1-2 ha) or to larger polygons used in mapping for forest management. Both methods were tested in comparisons with known murrelet nest sites and both are currently being applied by government and forest industry biologists. This note provides practitioners who are proposing to use one or both of these methods a concise guide to their suitability and limitations, and also provides links to relevant reports that offer greater detail on testing and applicability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".