MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915474871 · doi:10.3133/ds922

Data from the 2011 International Piping Plover Census

2015· article· en· W2915474871 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elise Elliott-Smith, Mark T. Bidwell, Amanda E. Holland, Susan M. Haig

Bibliographic record

VenueData series · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersU.S. Army Corps of EngineersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsCensusPloverCharadriusGeographyFisheryPipingAbundance (ecology)EcologyPopulationHabitatEnvironmental scienceBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report provides results from the 2011 International Census of Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus). Distribution and abundance data for wintering and breeding Piping Plovers are summarized in tabular format. An appendix provides census data for every site surveyed in every state, province, and island. The 2011 winter census resulted in the observation of 3,973 Piping Plovers. Expanded coverage outside of the United States led to the discovery of more than 1,000 Piping Plovers wintering in the Bahamas. The breeding census detected 2,771 birds in Atlantic Canada and the Plains, Prairies, and Great Lakes regions of the United States and Canada. Combining the census count with the U.S. Atlantic "window census" provides a total minimum estimate of 5,723 breeding birds for the species. development (5 percent), invasive species (2 percent), industry (2 percent), and dredged material (1 percent). Most disturbances fell into the "other" category (19 percent), with comments suggesting impacts from human recreation, dogs, ATVs, garbage, encroaching vegetation, erosion, etc., all of which were exacerbated in some instances by flood conditions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.149 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData seriesSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207