MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395628369 · doi:10.1002/wsb.658

Using digital recordings and sonogram analysis to obtain counts of yellow rails

2016· article· en· W2395628369 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kiel L. Drake, Matthew D. Frey, Danica Hogan, Richard Hedley

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Society Bulletin · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsBirds Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoudnessSampling (signal processing)RADIUSSound recording and reproductionStatisticsComputer scienceCartographyGeographyAcousticsTelecommunicationsMathematicsComputer visionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Autonomous recording units (ARUs) are emerging as a useful technology for the study and monitoring of animals that produce vocalizations. During summer and fall of 2013, we performed a series of experiments aimed at developing sampling protocols to count nocturnally active yellow rails ( Coturnicops noveboracensis ) from sound recordings. Field‐based portions of the work took place in the rural municipality of Foam Lake, Saskatchewan, Canada, in an open landscape where yellow rails can be found during the breeding season; lab‐based portions of the work occurred in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Our objectives were to 1) determine the frequency of yellow rail vocalizations to derive an empirically based sampling interval for counting individual birds; 2) assess the accuracy of yellow rail counts made from recordings; 3) determine the approximate sampling radius of the ARU for detecting yellow rails; and 4) determine the approximate audio volume (“loudness”) of yellow rail calls. We developed a sonogram‐based method for counting individual birds on recordings. Using field recordings of individual yellow rails, we generated recordings with known numbers of calling individuals (i.e., 1–12) and tested the accuracy of the sonogram‐based counts. Regardless of experience, observers were able to determine the number of rails calling with a high level of accuracy, especially when the chorus was composed of ≤6 individuals. From broadcast trials employing multiple ARUs, we found the effective detection radius of calling yellow rails to be between 150 m and 175 m. Although detection radius was influenced by broadcast intensity and ambient conditions, we view this range of distance as a reasonable estimate of the effective sampling radius for the ARUs that we used, which is useful for deriving values of density estimates. Finally, we measured loudness of yellow rail calling at approximately 95 dB; this value is useful to research efforts attempting to mimic actual yellow rails (e.g., call‐broadcast surveys, additional ARU experiments). A combination of the sonogram‐counting method and baseline information on detection radius of the ARU provides a tool that will generate high‐quality data on yellow rail occurrence, abundance, and density. Digital recorders represent a means to rapidly improve survey coverage of yellow rails throughout the species' range. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations52
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Society BulletinSame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207