MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338690758 · doi:10.26077/dnvb-x958

Increasing Trend of Damaging Bird Strikes with Aircraft Outside the Airport Boundary: Implications for Mitigation Measures

2011· article· en· W2338690758 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard A. Dolbeer

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - USU (Utah State University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeronauticsAviationCivil aviationGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A basic tenet of programs to mitigate the risks of bird strikes with aircraft has been to focus management efforts at airports because various historical analyses of bird-strike data for civil aviation have indicated the majority of strikes occur in this environment during take-off and landing at (AGL). However, a trend analysis of birdstrike data involving commercial air carriers from the U.S. National Wildlife Strike Database for Civil Aviation, 1990 to 2009, indicates that this tenet should be revised. The percentage of all strikes that occurred at >500 feet AGL increased significantly from about 25% in 1990 to 30% in 2009. The percentage of all damaging strikes that occurred at >500 feet increased at a greater rate, from about 37% in the early 1990s to 45% during 2005 to 2009. I also examined trends in strike rates (strikes/1 million commercial aircraft movements) for strikes occurring at < and >500 feet. From 1990 to 2009, the damaging strike rate at >500 feet increased from about 2.5 to 4.0, whereas the damaging strike rate for strikes at (Branta canadensis), the most frequently struck bird species with a body mass >1.8 kg, showed a pattern similar to that for all species. I conclude that mitigation efforts incrementally implemented at airports in the United States during the past 20 years have resulted in a reduction of damaging strikes in the airport environment. This reduction in strikes has occurred in spite of increases in populations of Canada geese and many other species hazardous to aircraft. However, these successful mitigation efforts, which must be sustained, have done little to reduce strikes outside the airport. Increased efforts now are needed to eliminate bird attractants within 5 miles of airports, to further develop bird-detecting radar and bird-migration forecasting, and to research avian sensory perception to enhance aircraft detection and avoidance by birds.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.189 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations72
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - USU (Utah State University)Same topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207