MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312814163 · doi:10.5751/ace-02260-170224

Comparing waterfowl densities detected through helicopter and airplane sea duck surveys in Labrador, Canada

2022· article· en· W4312814163 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Amelia R. Cox, Scott G. Gilliland, Eric T. Reed, Christian Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueAvian Conservation and Ecology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterfowlTransectBreeding pairRange (aeronautics)Seasonal breederAerial surveyEcologyGeographyAbundance (ecology)Distance samplingFisheryBiologyHabitatPopulationDemographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sea ducks are inadequately monitored because traditional waterfowl surveys omit most of their breeding range and may be conducted too early for these species which typically nest late in the season. The gap in monitoring is particularly concerning for scoters (genus Melanitta) because the limited available data suggest that the abundance across the three species of scoters in North America has declined since the 1980s. We conducted trial sea duck surveys in central Labrador, Newfoundland, and Labrador, Canada, using both helicopter plot and fixed-wing line-transect surveys (10–19 June and 17–19 June 2009, respectively) to assess the feasibility of conducting specialized surveys for late-nesting waterfowl during the scoter breeding season. We present the results of the fixed-wing line-transect component, which we analyzed in a distance-sampling hierarchical framework to calculate and correct for imperfect detection. We found that the breeding density of Black (Melanitta americana), Surf (Melanitta perspicillata), and White-winged (Melanitta deglandi) Scoters combined was 0.15 (90% credible interval: 0.12–0.18) indicating breeding pairs per km², one of the highest breeding densities of any waterfowl species in the area at this time. Estimates of waterfowl density approximately doubled for all species after accounting for detection because observers only detected between 20% to 40% of all groups depending on the species or genus. Though there was a slight male bias in the sex ratios, groups observed were two individuals (i.e., a breeding pair), suggesting that timing the survey in mid-June captured the breeding window for sea ducks. Despite correcting for detection, breeding densities estimated by the fixed-wing transect component of the survey remained substantially lower than those estimated from the previously published helicopter component, suggesting there were differences in availability bias between the two survey platforms.

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)0.002
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAvian Conservation and EcologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207