MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761716165 · doi:10.1111/ibi.12546

State uncertainty models and mark‐resight models for understanding non‐breeding site use by Piping Plovers

2017· article· en· W2761716165 on OpenAlex
Jonathan B. Cohen, Sidney B. Maddock, Melissa K. Bimbi, Walker Golder, Olivia E. LeDee, Francesca J. Cuthbert, Daniel H. Catlin, James D. Fraser, Cheri L. Gratto‐Trevor

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIbis · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEnvironment CanadaU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsCharadriusPopulationEndangered speciesVital ratesAbundance (ecology)GeographyFisheryPloverMark and recaptureHabitatPopulation modelPopulation sizeEcologyBiologyPopulation growthDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Conservation of beach‐nesting medium‐distance migrants has focused on breeding areas because protection of nests is more tractable than protection of non‐breeding habitat. As breeding ground management has encountered diminishing returns, interest in understanding threats in non‐breeding areas has increased. However, robust estimates of non‐breeding demographic rates and abundance are generally lacking, hindering the study of limiting factors. Estimating such rates is made more difficult by complex population dynamics at non‐breeding sites. In South Carolina, endangered Piping Plovers Charadrius melodus start arriving in July and some depart prior to December (the autumn‐only population) while others remain through at least March (the wintering population). State uncertainty capture‐mark‐recapture models provide a means for estimating vital rates for such co‐occurring populations. We estimated the proportion of the population entering the study area per survey (entry probability) and proportion remaining per survey (persistence rate) for both populations during autumn, and abundance of the wintering population, at four sites in South Carolina in 2006/7 and 2007/8, taking advantage of birds previously colour‐ringed on the breeding grounds. We made fairly precise estimates of entry and persistence rates with small sample sizes. Cumulative entry probability was ~50% by the end of July and reached 95% for both populations by October. Estimated stopover duration for birds in the autumn‐only population was 35 days in year 1 and 42 days in year 2. We estimated a wintering super‐population size of 71 ± 16 se birds in the first year and 75 ± 16 in the second. If ringing programmes on the breeding grounds continue, standardized resighting surveys in the non‐breeding period and mark‐recapture models can provide robust estimates of entry and persistence rates and abundance. Habitat protection intended to benefit non‐breeding Piping Plovers at our coastal sites should be in effect by late summer, as many birds are resident from July to the end of winter.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.189 · 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