Surveying populations of breeding grebes in prairie parkland Canada: Estimation problems and conservation applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Annual ground surveys of mid‐continent waterfowl may provide a monitoring framework for other wetland‐associated species. We used a repeated‐counts method to estimate detection probabilities of adult horned ( Podiceps auritus ) and pied‐billed ( Podylimbus podiceps ) grebes on the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey (WBPHS) ground component conducted annually each May in the prairie and parkland ecoregions of Canada. Detection probabilities ( ± SE) were higher, more precise, and more consistent through time for horned grebes (0.52 ± 0.06 and 0.44 ± 0.05 in 2010 and 2011, respectively) than for pied‐billed grebes (0.25 ± 0.08 and 0.11 ± 0.05 in 2010 and 2011, respectively). Our results suggest that the ground component of the WBPHS could be used to monitor horned grebes in these ecoregions. Although an active call‐broadcast component would be valuable for obtaining unbiased abundance estimates for horned grebes, such a component would be critical for monitoring pied‐billed grebes. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".