Wildlife Sightings at Western Canadian Regional Airports: Implications for Risk Analyses
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
Aircraft collisions with wildlife result in substantial personal and economic losses, requiring airport authorities to utilize all available resources to develop effective management strategies. We surveyed 16 western Canadian regional airports to document the use of wildlife strike and sighting records (WSSRs). Ninety-four percent of airports kept wildlife strike records, 19% kept bird sighting records and 25% kept animal sighting records. Of 12 airports, 33% used WSSRs to identify problem species or trends and 25% used WSSRs for risk analysis and management planning. Our findings suggest that WSSRs are underutilized in risk analyses and ungulate strike risk may be underestimated at most respondent airports. Airport mangers must stress due diligence in record keeping and the application of wildlife data to support risk analyses and sound wildlife management practices at airports.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it