Alberta amphibian call surveys : a pilot year : final report /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Call surveys using the North American Amphibian Monitoring Program (NAAMP) protocol were conducted in the summer of 2001 .The goal was to determine whether the NAAMP protocol was a useful technique in monitoring amphibian populations in Alberta, and if so, to initiate a volunteer-based survey.Forty-one transects and 22 point counts were established and surveyed throughout Alberta.Amphibians were heard at 55% of the point count stations and on 187 stations (37.6%) along the transects (n=497 stations).Species recorded included: western toad, Canadian toad, Great Plains toad, plains spadefoot, boreal chorus frog, wood frog, Columbia spotted frog, and northern leopard frog.More amphibians were recorded in forested areas than in prairie regions.Environmental conditions (wind speed, temperature, time of night) had an effect on detection rate (number of active stations/total number of stations surveyed).Ground truthing (46 ponds along 1 8 transects) revealed that call surveys are a good technique for determining presence of species that are more common.Rare species were not effectively monitored, however more work should be conducted during years when rain events are more common, to collect more information on the effectiveness of the survey protocol.Call surveys will be conducted in 2002 through Bird Studies Canada Marsh Monitoring Program.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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".