MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320495002 · doi:10.1111/mam.12310

Standardised and referenced acoustic monitoring reliably estimates bat fatalities at wind turbines: comments on ‘Limitations of acoustic monitoring at wind turbines to evaluate fatality risk of bats’

2023· article· en· W4320495002 on OpenAlexaff
Oliver Behr, Kévin Barré, Fabio Bontadina, Robert Brinkmann, Markus Dietz, Thierry Disca, Jérémy S. P. Froidevaux, Simon J. Ghanem, Senta Huemer, Johanna Hurst, Stefan K. Kaminsky, Volker Kelm, Fränzi Korner‐Nievergelt, Mirco Lauper, Paul R. Lintott, Christian Newman, Trevor Peterson, Jasmin Proksch, Charlotte Roemer, Wigbert Schorcht, Martina Nagy

Bibliographic record

VenueMammal Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
FundersBundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und VerbraucherschutzBundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie
KeywordsWind powerNacelleBioacousticsEnvironmental scienceMarine engineeringAcousticsMeteorologyComputer scienceTurbineGeographyEngineeringTelecommunicationsEcologyBiologyAerospace engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Voigt et al. (2021) provide a thorough analysis of the restrictions inherent to the estimation of bat abundance from acoustic surveys, and conclude that limitations of acoustic monitoring impede the reliable evaluation of bat fatalities at wind turbines. We argue that acoustic data recorded at the nacelle of wind turbines have been experimentally validated as a useful and appropriate measure of bat collisions. Therefore, acoustic data can be used to estimate bat fatalities at wind turbines, provided a referenced and standardised protocol for data acquisition and analysis is used.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.146
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.146
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0100.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMammal ReviewSame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207