MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980138857 · doi:10.26077/yv1k-dg31

Tracking Canada Geese Near Airports: Using Spatial Data to Better Inform Management

2019· article· en· W2980138857 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ryan J. Askren, Brett E. Dorak, Heath M. Hagy, Michael W. Eiccholz, Brian E. Washburn, Michael P. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTracking (education)GeographyEnvironmental resource managementData managementCartographyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The adaptation of birds to urban environments has created direct hazards to air transportation with the potential for catastrophic incidents. Bird–aircraft collisions involving Canada geese (Branta canadensis; goose) pose greater risks to aircraft than many bird species due to their size and flocking behavior. However, information on factors driving movements of geese near airports and within aircraft arrival/departure areas for application to management are limited. To address this need, we deployed 31 neck collar-mounted global positioning system transmitters on Canada geese near Midway International Airport in Chicago, Illinois, USA during November 2015 to February 2016. We used the movement data obtained to model environmental and behavioral factors influencing the intersection of goose movements (i.e., transition from 1 location to another) with air operations areas (i.e., aircraft flight paths). Of 3,008 goose movements recorded, 821 intersected a 3-km buffer around the airport representing U.S. Federal Aviation Administration recommended distances from wildlife attractants, and 399 intersected flight paths for approaching and landing aircraft. The effects of weather (i.e., snow cover, temperature, wind speed) on the probability of geese flying varied with different air operation areas while certain habitat resources greatly increased the probability of intersection. For example, the juxtaposition of foraging (railyards with spilled grain) and loafing areas (rooftops) near the airport led to a higher probability of movements intersecting important air operations areas. The average altitude of flying geese was 29.8 m above the ground, resulting in the greatest risk of collision being within 0.5 km of the end of runways. We suggest airport goose collision mitigation management actions, such as reducing habitat resources near the airport and using focused nonlethal harassment or physical modifications, when guided by animal movement data, may further mitigate bird-strike risks.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.153 · 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
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207