MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986448255 · doi:10.1002/ecy.2919

Long‐term monitoring of Serengeti bird species occurrence, abundance, and habitat

2019· article· en· W2986448255 on OpenAlexafffund
L. Francisco Henao‐Díaz, A. R. E. Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaZoologische Gesellschaft Frankfurt
KeywordsTransectHabitatAbundance (ecology)GeographyEcologyEcosystemBelt transectBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Serengeti ecosystem contains one of the most diverse bird assemblages in Africa. We present here a data set consisting of abundances of bird species in different habitats of the Serengeti ecosystem over a 87-yr time frame. This data set comprises 66,643 georeferenced occurrences for 568 species from 1929 to 2017. Most records contain feeding location, food source, distribution status, and observation locality. The records originate from three different but complementary methodologies: points, sites, and transects. The point method (bird species records 1929-2017) is based on ad hoc observations and includes rare species or those in special habitats. These points came from published records as well from the research program of A. R. E. Sinclair and colleagues. The site method (1966-2017) is based on structured observations at sites selected to represent specific habitats, and replicated within habitats and over time. At each site, birds were recorded by sight and sound over a radius of 50 m for 10 min. The transect method (1997-2011) is based on road transects covering different areas of the ecosystem. Road transects were traversed using a vehicle with observers travelling at 30 km/h. Bird species were those easily seen from a vehicle out to 50 m either side. As most transects were traversed multiple times, this method provides information on temporal change in abundance for a select set of species. No copyright restrictions apply to the use of this data set other than citing this publication.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationFrench-language works237,207