Status of a broadly distributed endangered species: results and implications of the second International Piping Plover Census
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods for monitoring progress toward recovery goals are highly variable and may be problematic for endangered species that are mobile and widely distributed. Recovery objectives for Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) include attainment of minimum population sizes within specified recovery units, as determined by two U.S. and two Canadian recovery teams. To assess progress toward these goals, complete surveys of the species' winter and breeding ranges in Canada, the United States, Mexico, the Bahamas, and the Greater Antilles are conducted every 5 years. In 1996, 1200 biologists and volunteers participated in the second International Piping Plover Census, tallying 2515 wintering birds and 5913 adults (2668 breeding pairs) during the breeding census. Winter numbers were 27% lower than those of the first international census conducted in 1991, with substantially fewer wintering birds along the Gulf of Mexico and an overall increase in numbers along the Atlantic Coast. Large numbers of wintering plovers remain undetected. In 1996, the total number of breeding adults was 7.7% higher than in 1991. Regionally, breeding numbers were 31% higher along the Atlantic Coast and 20% higher in the small Great Lakes population, but declined by 5% in the U.S. Great Plains and the Canadian Prairie. Target recovery numbers were met only for Saskatchewan but were approached in Alberta and New England. The results suggest that Piping Plover distribution and habitat use in the U.S. Great Plains/Canadian Prairie region may shift dramatically with water conditions.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".