MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2190981791 · doi:10.1650/condor-15-78.1

Effect of sampling effort on bias and precision of trends in migration counts

2015· article· en· W2190981791 on OpenAlexafffund
Tara L. Crewe, Denis Lepage, Philip D. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueOrnithological Applications · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityBirds CanadaWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsBird Studies CanadaCompute CanadaHawk Mountain Sanctuary Association
KeywordsSampling (signal processing)StatisticsSampling biasInferenceSample (material)Sample size determinationPopulationRare speciesEconometricsMathematicsGeographyEcologyBiologyComputer scienceDemographyHabitatArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hourly or daily counts of animals during migration are used to assess change in population status. However, due to financial and logistical constraints, it is sometimes not possible to sample the entire migration, resulting in an unknown impact on accuracy and precision of estimated trends. Using simulated migration counts of 3 raptor species, commonly detected Sharp-shinned Hawks (Accipiter striatus), rarely detected Merlins (Falco columbarius), and super-flocking Broad-winged Hawks (Buteo platypterus), we used a hierarchical modeling framework to test whether sampling effort influenced accuracy and precision of trends. We subsampled simulated datasets in various ways: weekends only; a random sample of 40%, 60%, or 80% of the migration; or the first 25%, 50%, or 75% of the migration. Bias in trend estimates and probability of error (estimating a false but significant trend) varied little with sampling effort for the common and rare species, which suggests that for these species, sampling only a small subset of the migration will not increase the probability of drawing false inference from the data. However, when counts of the super-flocking species were highly variable among days, trends were strongly positively biased when the first 25% of the migration was sampled, and probability of error increased with sampling effort. For all species, probability of detecting a significant and accurate trend also improved with sampling effort, but only exceeded 80% for common and rare species when a majority of the migration was sampled. Increasing sampling effort is recommended to improve power of trend analyses for common and rare species, but for super-flocking species, randomly sampling a subset of observation days throughout the migration can minimize error, but at the expense of a ~22–25% reduction in power using 20-year datasets. For species with this pattern, other methods to improve power, such as combining data across sites, should be considered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.174
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.174
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrnithological ApplicationsSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207