A preliminary assessment of using conservation drones for Sumatran orang-utan (<i>Pongo abelii</i>) distribution and density
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To conserve biodiversity, scientists monitor wildlife populations and their habitats. Current methods have constraints, such as the costs of ground or aerial surveys, limited resolution of freely available satellite images, and expensive high-resolution satellite images. Recently researchers started to use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) for wildlife and habitat monitoring. Here we tested whether we could detect nests of the critically endangered Sumatran orang-utan on imagery acquired from a camera-mounted drone to determine distribution and density. Our results show that the distribution of nests compares well between aerial and ground-based surveys and that relative density (nest/km) shows a significant correlation between these two survey types. The results also indicate that both methods can be used to detect significant differences in relative density between previously degraded reforested and enriched areas. We conclude that orang-utan nest surveys from drones are a promising survey method to determine distribution and (relative) density of Sumatran orang-utans and perhaps other ape species.
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.
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 it