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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.011

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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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