Comparing occupied and unoccupied aircraft surveys of wildlife populations: Assessing the gray seal (<i>Halichoerus grypus</i>) breeding colony on Muskeget Island, USA
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
Unoccupied aircraft systems (UAS) are now frequently used in wildlife research, including studies of marine species. Researchers are turning to UAS platforms for population assessment purposes because they may provide flexible, safe, and low-cost data collection. In these cases, it is important that the accuracy and precision of UAS-based approaches are evaluated to ensure data quality and comparability with legacy data. The present study compares image quality and survey performance of two small UAS with that of an occupied aircraft as applied to a population survey and molt-stage assessment of gray seals (Halichoerus grypus) in the northeastern United States. Population surveys using fixed-wing UAS and occupied aircraft provided similar quality imagery with only minor deviations in counts of both adult seals (<1% difference) and pups (3.7% difference). The multicopter UAS proved especially useful for molt-stage assessment when compared to both fixed-wing UAS and occupied aircraft surveys. The results of this study clearly illustrate that small UAS are reliable tools for conducting population assessments of pinnipeds and establishing life history stages of animals. These new tools provide flexibility in operations and may reduce costs and human risk in some cases.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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