Harry R. Painton Award 2017, to Katie Dugger et al.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every two years, the American Ornithological Society bestows the Harry R. Painton Award for a paper published during the past four years in The Condor: Ornithological Applications that has made an extraordinary contribution to ornithology. The Harry R. Painton Award for 2017 is presented to K. M. Dugger, E. D. Forsman, A. B. Franklin, R. J. Davis, G. C. White, C. J. Schwarz, K. P. Burnham, J. D. Nichols, J. E. Hines, C. B. Yackulic, P. F. Doherty, Jr., L. Bailey, D. A. Clark, S. H. Ackers, L. S. Andrews, B. Augustine, B. L. Biswell, J. Blakesley, P. C. Carlson, M. J. Clement, L. V. Diller, E. M. Glenn, A. Green, S. A. Gremel, D. R. Herter, J. M. Higley, J. Hobson, R. B. Horn, K. P. Huyvaert, C. McCafferty, T. McDonald, K. McDonnell, G. S. Olson, J. A. Reid, J. Rockweit, V. Ruiz, J. Saenz, and S. G. Sovern for their paper “The effects of habitat, climate, and Barred Owls on long-term demography of Northern Spotted Owls,” published in 2016 in The Condor:Ornithological Applications 118:57–116. The article is a synthesis for the Spotted Owl, a species of conservation concern that is affected by forest management and is being displaced by the Barred Owl as a competitor. The article includes a remarkable set of demographic data from multiple sites. The authors used mark–recapture analyses with random effects to model occupancy dynamics, components of fecundity and survival, and effects of environmental covariates. The study also included a novel field experiment in which demographic responses of Spotted Owls were examined in response to experimental culling of Barred Owls. The article stands out as a particularly comprehensive work based on extensive fieldwork at multiple sites, impressive collaboration among many researchers, innovative use of new statistical methods, and new insights into the competitive interactions of conspecific species of owl. The article provides new evidence that the future persistence of Spotted Owls may be reliant on conservation action, and that continued removals of Barred Owls may be necessary to halt or slow the extirpation of sensitive populations. The Authors. Photo credit: Peter Carlson The Harry R. Painton Award, given in odd-numbered years as a cash prize of at least $1,000, is presented to the author of an outstanding paper published in the four preceding years in The Condor: Ornithological Applications. The Publications Awards Committee may choose not to grant an award, with approval of the American Ornithological Society Council. Funds for the award come from a bequest from Mr. Painton. By vote of the council, society funds may be used to increase the amount of this award. A list of previous Painton Awardees can be found at http://www.americanornithology.org/content/aos-painton-award.01
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.266 | 0.143 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".