Using binomial distance-sampling models to estimate the effective detection radius of point-count surveys across boreal Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used binomial distance-sampling models to estimate the effective detection radius (EDR) of point-count surveys across boreal Canada. We evaluated binomial models based on 0–50 m and >50 m distance categories for goodness-of-fit and sensitivities to variation in survey effort and habitats sampled. We also compared binomial EDRs to Partners in Flight's maximum detection distances (MDD) to determine differences in landbird population sizes derived from each. Binomial EDRs had a small positive bias (4%) averaged across 86 species and a large positive bias (30–82%) for two species when compared with EDRs estimated using multinomial distance sampling. Patterns in binomial EDRs were consistent with how bird songs attenuate in relation to their frequencies and transmission through different habitats. EDR varied 12% among habitats and increased 17% when birds were counted to an unlimited distance, compared with a limited distance of 100 m. The EDR did not vary with the duration of surveys, and densities did not differ when using unlimited-distance versus truncated data. Estimated densities, however, increased 19% from 3- to 5-min counts and 25% from 5- to 10-min counts, possibly from increases in the availability, movement, or double counting of birds with longer counts. Thus, investigators should be cautious when comparing distance-sampling results among studies if methods vary. Population sizes estimated using EDR averaged 5 times (0.8–15 times) those estimated with MDD. Survey data from which to estimate binomial EDRs are widely available across North America and could be used as an alternative to MDD when estimating landbird population sizes.
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 | 0.001 | 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".