Perceptibility of Prairie Songbirds Using Double-Observer Point Counts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have evaluated techniques for estimating detectability of prairie songbirds. We conducted dependent double-observer point counts at 52 plots in prairie pastures in southern Alberta, Canada, in 2012, to test for species-specific, group-specific, and observer-specific differences in perceptibility. Although we did not find strong species or observer effects on perceptibility of most species in the study, we found evidence of differences in perceptibility when we pooled prairie songbirds into groups according to singing behaviors. Observers typically perceived only 40% of quiet songbirds singing from the ground (e.g., grasshopper sparrows and horned larks) but observed >89% of louder species singing from perch sites (e.g., Savannah sparrows) or in flight (e.g., Sprague’s pipits). Dependent double-observer methods would result in little increase in accuracy of abundance estimates for most species, but could be useful in studies where quiet species are more abundant or are targets for conservation management.
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".