Using independent nest survey data to validate changes in reporting rates of Martial Eagles between the Southern African Bird Atlas Project 1 and 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repeat monitoring is vital to measure biodiversity change. However, monitoring protocols may change, as survey techniques improve or different questions are asked. Such modifications may cause difficulties when examining changes in wildlife populations. The Southern African Bird Atlas Project (SABAP) 1 and 2 are repeat national bird surveys undertaken 20 years apart. These surveys therefore offer unrivalled potential to examine bird population changes in an African context. However, changes in protocols, both spatially and temporally, between the two surveys have raised concerns over using these data to infer population changes. In this study we use independ- ent nest survey data to test whether changes in reporting rates of Martial Eagles in the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park between the two SABAP surveys were reflected in real change in numbers of nesting pairs. From 11 quarter degree squares (QDS), covering c. 8 000 km2, both SABAP and nest surveys suggested a near identical 44% decline. Levels of agreement were weaker at the individual QDS scale, although in 67% of cases the direction of change was the same using both surveys. These results suggest that comparisons in the reporting rates between SABAP 1 and SABAP 2 accurately reflect changes in the breeding population size of this 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".