Estimating Numbers of Black Brant Using Sequential Spring‐Staging Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Estimating total number of birds using a particular staging site during migration is challenging because counts alone do not account for turnover in the local population. Robust statistical methods are needed to more fully assess the conservation value of such sites. We used the multi‐strata model in Program MARK to estimate time‐dependent transition probabilities between sequential staging sites to estimate lengths of stay for spring‐staging Pacific black brant ( Branta bernicla nigricans ) on the Fraser River delta and Parksville‐Qualicum areas in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, Canada. Using resightings of marked individuals in combination with ground counts, we estimated the total number of brant, with associated uncertainties, staging at these sites during the spring migrations of 1999 and 2000. We estimated between 28,927 and 33,181 individual brant transited the Fraser River delta and Parksville‐Qualicum sites in 1999 and between 21,621 and 25,405 individuals in 2000. These totals correspond to approximately 18–26% of the entire Pacific Flyway brant population, suggesting the need for continued conservation and management efforts at these sites. Given the importance of staging sites to migratory populations, we believe this method could be applied to other species and locations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".