A Low-Cost Technique for Radio-Tracking Wildlife Using a Small Standard Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to study wildlife offer promise and may improve data collection efficiency, and small UAVs, such as multirotor platforms, are suitable for this task because they are easy to deploy, can fly over terrain that is difficult to access on foot, and can be programmed to follow specific trajectories. The objective of our study was to determine whether a small UAV could be outfitted with a radio receiver to pick up signals from radio-transmitters worn by small forest birds (Catharus bicknelli and C. ustulatus). We compared radio-monitoring using an UAV and a ground-based vehicle. The detection of over 50% of the tagged birds in the 50 m altitude flights is indicative of the real potential of the concept. This is supported by a signal strength significantly stronger and more constant than ground-based signals. The signal receptor experienced no significant interference from the UAV electronics, thus enabling a “clean” set of detections from the birds. Based on these preliminary results, we conclude that UAVs can yield useable data from animals wearing light-weight transmitters. Radio-tracking birds with UAVs presents strong potential for applications in all types of forest stands, or even in the radio-tracking of multiple species or taxa.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it