Feasibility of urban bird occurrence and nest amount evaluation by the street-view image virtual survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bird observation mainly relies on field surveys, which are time-consuming and laborious. In this study, we explored using street-view images in the virtual survey of urban birds and nests. Using the coastal city of Qingdao as the study area, 47 201 seamless spherical photos at 2741 sites were collected using the Baidu street-view (BSV) map. Single-rater-all photo checks and seven-rater-metapopulation checks were used to find inter-rater repeatability, the best viewing layer for BSV collection, and possible environments affecting the results. We also collected community science data for comparison. The BSV time machine was used to assess the temporal dynamics. Kappa square test, generalized linear model, redundancy ordination and ArcMap were used in the analysis. Different rater repeatability was 79.1% in nest evaluations and 46.9% in bird occurrence. A re-check of the different-rating photos can increase them to 92% and 70%. Seven-rater statistics showed that more than 5% sampling ratio could produce a non-significant different bird and nest percentage of the whole data, and the higher sampling ratio could reduce the variation. The middle-viewing layer survey alone could produce 93% precision of the nest checks by saving 2/3 of the time used; in birds, selecting middle and upper-view photos could find 97% of bird occurrences. In the spatial distribution, the nest's hotspot areas from this method were much greater than the community science bird-watching sites. The BSV time machine made it possible to re-check nests in the same sites but challenging the re-check of bird occurrences. The nests and birds can be observed more in the leafless season, on wide, traffic-dense coastal streets with complex vertical structures of trees, and in the gaps of tall buildings dominated by road forests. Our results indicate that BSV photos could be used to virtually evaluate bird occurrence and nests from their numbers, spatial distribution and temporal dynamics. This method provides a pre-experimental and informative supplement to large-scale bird occurrence and nest abundance surveys in urban environments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".