MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375922349 · doi:10.22230/jem.2010v10n3a6

Does interpretation of Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat change with different classification methods?

2010· article· en· W4375922349 on OpenAlexafffundabout
F. Louise Waterhouse, Alan E. Burger, Peter K. Ott, Ann Donaldson, David B. Lank

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecosystems and Management · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser UniversityMinistry of Environment
KeywordsHabitatGeographyAerial surveyNesting (process)WildlifeVegetation (pathology)EcologyEnvironmental scienceCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate and reliable identification of potential nesting habitat is required to manage for the threatened Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). Three habitat classifications are typically used by wildlife planners: a bivariate suitability algorithm following recommendations of the Canadian Marbled Murrelet Recovery Team (CMMRT) and based on geographical information systems (GIS), and two habitat classifications based on air photo interpretation mapping and low-level aerial survey mapping. The CMMRT model uses vegetation resource inventory data. The air photo interpretation and low-level aerial survey methods directly assess the forest for attributes likely to provide nesting platforms, cover, and access into the stand by the bird. The prime indicators of nesting habitat potential for murrelets are large (generally mossy) branches for use as nest platforms. These are only directly visible using low-level aerial surveys. Methods involving GIS cost the least to apply, and low-level aerial surveys cost the most. We compared and assessed the consistency of the three methods using 243 sites. The CMMRT model proved least reliable by underestimating habitat suitability of sites compared to both the air photo interpretation and aerial survey estimates. The air photo interpretation and aerial survey methods were generally aligned in the ordinal ranking of sites by habitat class, but only 44% had matching ranks. Sites that differed tended to be ranked lower by air photo interpretation and mostly occurred in the “Moderate” and “Low” air photo interpretation classes. Either classification may refine information from the CMMRT model, particularly for habitat classed as “Unsuitable.” Using air photo interpretation first and then applying the aerial surveys as a further refined assessment of moderate and low habitat classes may provide the most cost-effective approach for accurately classifying and mapping habitat potential for management planning.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ecosystems and ManagementSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207