MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308726151 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v136i2.2905

Do turtle roadkill hotspots shift from year to year?

2022· article· en· W4308726151 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
David C. Seburn, Mackenzie Burns, Elena Kreuzberg, Leah Viau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Parks and Wilderness SocietyCanadian Wildlife Federation
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaCanadian Wildlife FederationGovernment of Canada
KeywordsGeographyHotspot (geology)Physical geographyCartographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Freshwater turtles face many threats but roadkill is one of the most serious for many species. Roadkill of turtles is not uniformly distributed across roads but aggregated in certain areas, termed hotspots. A key question in identifying hotspots is whether they are fixed locations or if they shift from year to year because of changes in movement patterns. We compared how one, two, and three years of road survey data compared with the pooled data from four years of surveys. We found 254 turtles during 73 surveys during four years along a 15.5 km road section in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The four years of pooled data produced four hotspots (“pooled hotspots”) while each year or combination of years produced from three to five hotspots, four of which approximately corresponded to the pooled hotspots. The average percentage overlap of hotspots between one, two, or three years of survey data and the pooled hotspots ranged from 58.7% to 88.9%. Just one year of surveys sometimes missed one of the pooled hotspots, underestimated the spatial extent of the pooled hotspots, and also sometimes produced an additional “temporary” hotspot. Two years of surveys generally produced better approximations of the pooled hotspots and better identified the spatial extent of those hotspots.

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 score0.232
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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.003

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationFrench-language works237,207