Joint analysis of structured and semi-structured community science data improves precision of relative abundance but not trends in birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating absolute and relative abundance of wildlife populations is critical to addressing ecological questions and conservation needs, yet obtaining reliable estimates can be challenging because surveys are often limited spatially or temporally. Community science (i.e., citizen science) provides opportunities for semi-structured data collected by the public (e.g., eBird) to improve capacity of relative abundance estimation by complementing structured survey data collected by trained observers (e.g., North American breeding bird survey [BBS]). We developed two state-space models to estimate relative abundance and population trends: one using BBS data and the other jointly analyzing BBS and eBird data. We applied these models to seven bird species with diverse life history characteristics. Joint analysis of eBird and BBS data improved precision of mean and year-specific relative abundance estimates for all species, but the BBS-only model produced more precise trend estimates compared to the joint model for most species. The relative abundance estimates of the joint model were particularly more precise than the BBS-only estimates in areas where species detectability was low resulting from either low BBS survey effort or low abundance. These results suggest that community science data can be a valuable resource for cost-effective improvement in wildlife abundance estimation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".