MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588346857 · doi:10.5066/f7rr1wbn

Waterfowl Counts and Wildfire Burn Data from the Western Boreal Forest of North America, 1955-2014

2016· article· en· W2588346857 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tyler L. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueUSGS DOI Tool Production Environment · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterfowlTransectGeographyTaigaBorealHabitatPopulationAbundance (ecology)EcologyPhysical geographyForestryEnvironmental scienceArchaeologyDemographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The project utilized data from the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey, which is an annual survey conducted since 1955 by the governments of the United States and Canada to monitor waterfowl populations. These survey data were spatially and temporally layered onto long-term databases of fire perimeters for Alaska and western Canada, providing a record of waterfowl transects which had burned over the last 60 years. The project modelled abundance of dabbler and diver pairs in relation to time since fire, looking at short-term (e.g., 1-3 years) versus long-term timeframes (e.g., greater than 5 years), and in relation to fire extent, defined as the percent of transect which had burned.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUSGS DOI Tool Production EnvironmentSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207