The Program for Regional and International Shorebird Monitoring (PRISM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report describes the “Program for Regional and International Shorebird Monitoring” (PRISM). PRISM is being implemented by a Canada-United States Shorebird Monitoring and Assessment Committee formed in 2001 by the Canadian Shorebird Working Group and the U.S. Shorebird Council. PRISM provides a single blueprint for implementing the shorebird conservation plans recently completed in Canada and the United States. The goals of PRISM are to (1) estimate the size of breeding populations of 74 shorebird taxa in North America; (2) describe the distribution, abundance, and habitat relationships for each of these taxa; (3) monitor trends in shorebird population size; (4) monitor shorebird numbers at stopover locations, and; (5) assist local managers in meeting their shorebird conservation goals. PRISM has four main components: arctic and boreal breeding surveys, temperate breeding surveys, temperate nonbreeding surveys, and neotropical surveys. Progress on, and action items for, each major component are described. The most important major tasks for immediate action are carrying out the northern surveys, conducting regional analyses to design the program of migration counts, and evaluating aerial photographic surveys for migration and winter counts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.008 |
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".