MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593986030 · doi:10.3996/102015-jfwm-109

Expanding the North American Breeding Bird Survey Analysis to Include Additional Species and Regions

2017· article· en· W2593986030 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John R. Sauer, Daniel K. Niven, Keith L. Pardieck, David J. Ziolkowski, William A. Link

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish and Wildlife Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreeding bird surveyGeographySurvey data collectionEcologyHabitatSurvey methodologyBird conservationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) contains data for >700 bird species, but analyses often focus on a core group of ∼420 species. We analyzed data for 122 species of North American birds for which data exist in the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) database but are not routinely analyzed on the BBS Summary and Analysis Website. Many of these species occur in the northern part of the continent, on routes that fall outside the core survey area presently analyzed in the United States and southern Canada. Other species not historically analyzed occur in the core survey area with very limited data but have large portions of their ranges in Mexico and south. A third group of species not historically analyzed included species thought to be poorly surveyed by the BBS, such as rare, coastal, or nocturnal species. For 56 species found primarily in regions north of the core survey area, we expanded the scope of the analysis, using data from 1993 to 2014 during which ≥3 survey routes had been sampled in 6 northern strata (Bird Conservation regions in Alaska, Yukon, and Newfoundland and Labrador) and fitting log-linear hierarchical models for an augmented BBS survey area that included both the new northern strata and the core survey area. We also applied this model to 168 species historically analyzed in the BBS that had data from these additional northern strata. For both groups of species we calculated survey-wide trends for the both core and augmented survey areas from 1993 to 2014; for species that did not occur in the newly defined strata, we computed trends from 1966 to 2014. We evaluated trend estimates in terms of established credibility criteria for BBS results, screening for imprecise trends, small samples, and low relative abundance. Inclusion of data from the northern strata permitted estimation of trend for 56 species not historically analyzed, but only 4 of these were reasonably monitored and an additional 13 were questionably monitored; 39 of these species were likely poorly monitored because of small numbers of samples or very imprecisely estimated trends. Only 4 of 66 “new” species found in the core survey area were reasonably monitored by the BBS; 20 were questionably monitored; and 42 were likely poorly monitored by the BBS because of inefficiency in precision, abundance, or sample size. The hierarchical analyses we present provide a means for reasonable inclusion of the additional species and strata in a common analysis with data from the core area, a critical step in the evolution of the BBS as a continent-scale survey. We recommend that results be presented both 1) from 1993 to the present using the expanded survey area, and 2) from 1966 to the present for the core survey area. Although most of the “new” species we analyzed were poorly monitored by the BBS during 1993–2014, continued expansion of the BBS will improve the quality of information in future analyses for these species and for the many other species presently monitored by the BBS.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish and Wildlife ManagementSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207