MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922094107 · doi:10.26077/x7ew-6349

Impact of Wind Energy on Bats: A Summary of our Current Knowledge

2016· article· en· W2922094107 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cris Hein, Michael R. Schirmacher

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurrent (fluid)Wind powerEnvironmental scienceEnergy (signal processing)GeographyMeteorologyEngineeringGeologyOceanographyPhysicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(Uploaded by Plazi for the Bat Literature Project) Since 2003, when it was discovered that large numbers of bats were being killed at wind turbines in the eastern United States, our understanding of the impact of wind energy development on bats has increased and consistent patterns of fatality, including seasonality and species composition have become evident. Yet, many questions remain despite the wealth of data collected across numerous post-construction monitoring studies. We synthesized the recent literature to provide an overview of our current understanding of patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in the United States and Canada. Our understanding of the impact of wind energy development on bats continues to be hindered by inconsistencies among studies and lack of publicly available data. It will be dif¿cult to fully address this complex issue and develop sustainable strategies to reduce the impact of wind turbines on bats and generate wind energy without standardized protocols for ¿eld methods, estimation of fatality, and greater cooperation among stakeholders.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations40
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207