Trends in Abundance of Semipalmated Sandpipers: Evidence from the Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counts of Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusilla) at some migratory stopover sites have shown pronounced declines over the last 35 years. Counts from breeding grounds avoid sources of bias that have proven troublesome for trends estimated from migration surveys. Published and unpublished data were reviewed to examine trends in densities of Semipalmated Sandpipers at breeding sites across Alaska and arctic Canada. Information was sparse, and some comparisons are tenuous because methods varied over time. Valid time series were obtained for 13 sites across the species' range. In Alaska, Semipalmated Sandpipers either increased or were at least stable at six sites and decreased at one site. Surveys at both sites in the central portion of the range suggested no change in abundance. In the eastern portion of the range, trends were variable: decreases were observed at two sites, a possible increase at one site, and no change at another. Thus, the species was generally increasing or stable in the western and central portions of the range and had an uncertain status in the east. Also, trends in presence/absence data were analyzed from the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Checklist Survey. The species was observed at 345 sites, and results suggested that birds increased significantly in prevalence (assumed here to be correlated with abundance) across arctic Canada between 1987 and 2007. Overall, data from the breeding grounds do not support a range-wide decline in the abundance of Semipalmated Sandpipers, although data are insufficient for the long-billed population from the eastern Arctic for which specific conservation concerns exist.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".