Estimating breeding bird survey trends and annual indices for Canada: how do the new hierarchical Bayesian estimates differ from previous estimates?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) provide information on the population status and trends for over 300 species that regularly breed in Canada. Since the first assessments were made in the mid-1970s, both the dataset and the suite of statistical tools and techniques available to researchers have grown. As a result, Canadian BBS trend estimates have been derived from numerous statistical models. Because the BBS data are relatively complex, different statistical models can generate different trend and status estimates from the same data. In 2013, Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service began producing BBS status and trend estimates using a hierarchical Bayesian model. To give users of BBS trends and annual indices of abundance a better understanding of these estimates, we demonstrate and explain some of the similarities and differences between the new hierarchical Bayesian estimates and those from the previous model; discuss the philosophical and inferential consequences of estimating trends with the new model; and describe how the hierarchical Bayesian model differs from the model currently used in the United States. Overall, trends and annual indices from the new model are generally similar to estimates from the previous model; however, they are more precise, less variable among years, better represent the spatial variation across Canada in population status, and allow for more intuitive and useful assessments of uncertainty.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it