Spatially explicit Bayesian hierarchical models for avian population status and trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Population trend estimates form the core of avian conservation assessments in North America and indicate important changes in the state of the natural world. The models used to estimate these trends would be more efficient and informative for conservation if they explicitly considered the spatial locations of the monitoring data. We created spatially explicit versions of some standard status and trend models applied to long-term monitoring data for birds across North America. We compared the spatial models to simpler non-spatial versions of the same models, fitting them to simulated data and real data from three broad-scale monitoring programs: the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), the Christmas Bird Count (CBC), and a collection of programs we refer to as Migrating Shorebird Surveys (MSS). All the models generally reproduced the true simulated trends and population trajectories when there were many data, but the spatial models outperformed the non-spatial models when there were fewer data and in locations where the local trends differed from the range-wide means. When fit to real data, the spatial models revealed interesting spatial patterns in trends that were much less apparent in results from the non-spatial versions. The spatially explicit sharing of information also means we can fit the models with much smaller strata, allowing for finer-grained patterns in trends. Spatially informed trends will facilitate more locally relevant conservation, highlight areas of conservation successes and challenges, and help generate and test hypotheses about the spatially dependent drivers of population change.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".