A utilization distribution for the global population of Cape Vultures (<scp><i>G</i></scp><i>yps</i><scp><i>c</i></scp><i>oprotheres</i>) to guide wind energy development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid development of wind energy in southern Africa represents an additional threat to the already fragile populations of African vultures. The distribution of the vulnerable Cape Vulture Gyps coprotheres overlaps considerably with wind energy development areas in South Africa, creating conflicts that can hinder both vulture conservation and sustainable energy development. To help address this conflict and aid in the safe placement of wind energy facilities, we map the utilization distribution (UD) of this species across its distributional range. Using tracking data from 68 Cape Vultures collected over the last 20 years, we develop a spatially explicit habitat use model to estimate the expected UDs around known colonies. Scaling the UDs by the number of vultures expected to use each of the colonies, we estimate the Cape Vulture population utilization distribution (PUD) and determine its exposure to wind farm impacts. To complement our results, we model the probability of a vulture flying within the rotor sweep area of a wind turbine throughout the species range and use this to identify areas that are particularly prone to collisions. Overall, our estimated PUD correlates well with reporting rates of the species from the Southern African Bird Atlas Project, currently used to assess potential overlap between Cape Vultures and wind energy developments, but it adds important benefits, such as providing a spatial gradient of activity estimates over the entire species range. We illustrate the application of our maps by analyzing the exposure of Cape Vultures in the Renewable Energy Development Zones (REDZs) in South Africa. This application is a scalable procedure that can be applied at different planning phases, from strategic, nationwide planning to project-level assessments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".