MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W281457782 · doi:10.22230/jem.2009v10n1a413

Using the low-level aerial survey method to identify Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat

2009· article· en· W281457782 on OpenAlexafffund
F. Louise Waterhouse, Alan E. Burger, David B. Lank, Peter K. Ott, Elsie Krebs, Nadine Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecosystems and Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutions3v Geomatics (Canada)Environment and Climate Change CanadaSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of VictoriaGovernment of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser UniversityBritish Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands
KeywordsHabitatNest (protein structural motif)GeographyThreatened speciesEcologyNesting (process)CanopyAerial surveyEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identifying and managing nesting habitat for the threatened Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) is difficult because it nests secretively, high in the canopies of large, old conifers of the Pacific Northwest. In British Columbia, low-level surveying from a helicopter is now a recommended standard method of assessing forested landscapes for key microhabitat features—such as availability of potential platforms and developed moss pads for nests, foliage cover above the nest, and accessibility—that are not distinguishable on air photos, satellite images, or forest cover maps. Using a sample of 111 nest sites and 139 random sites within forests greater than 140 years old and distributed across three study areas in south coastal British Columbia, we confirmed the effectiveness of the aerial survey method for classifying overall habitat quality of murrelet nesting habitat. The minimum map units were 3-ha patches. Overall, 40% of the 111 nest sites were in patches classed as Very High, 36% were in High, 15% were in Moderate, 6% were in Low, and 3% were in Very Low. Our ranking of habitat quality was most strongly influenced by estimates of platform availability and moss development. Using an information-theoretic approach, we identified that the Resource Selection Function scores of nest patches improved as elevation decreased, slope grade increased, and the proportion of emergent and canopy trees with mossy pads increased. We also confirmed that study area location affected the strength of model application. Our findings support the potential utility of the low-level aerial survey method for identifying or confirming Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat for land-management purposes.

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 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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ecosystems and ManagementSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207