MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401837549 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2023-0382

Assessing total mortality following seabird wrecks given variable data quantity and quality: the Cassin’s auklet die-off

2024· article· en· W4401837549 on OpenAlexaffvenue
T. Todd Jones, Julia K. Parrish, Parker MacCready, Lisa T. Ballance, David W. Bradley, Hillary K. Burgess, Jane Dolliver, James T. Harvey, Trevor Joyce, Kirsten Lindquist, Jacqueline Lindsey, Hannahrose M. Nevins, Jan Roletto, Laurie Wilson, Charlie Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Conflict Studies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaBirds Canada
FundersDivision of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal SettingsUniversity of WashingtonCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationWashington Department of Fish and WildlifeNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSeabirdVariable (mathematics)Quality (philosophy)StatisticsFisheryEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyEcologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mass mortality events (MMEs) of seabirds are becoming more frequent as the global climate warms. Often documented via beached bird surveys, methods for estimating event-wide mortality are needed that can accommodate regional differences in carcass deposition and data quality/quantity. We develop a framework for estimating mortality from beached bird counts, extending existing approaches through the novel application of ocean circulation modeling to assess beaching likelihood. We applied our framework to the 2014/15 Cassin’s auklet ( Ptychoramphus aleuticus) MME, which spread across three regions (central California, northern California-through-Washington, British Columbia) with varying data quality/quantity. Our best mortality estimate of ∼400 000 (estimates ranged from 265 000 to 700 000 depending on model uncertainty and extent) places this seabird MME as one of the largest on record. However, we caution that much uncertainty exists surrounding model parameterization and deposition in British Columbia where beached bird data were sparse. We suggest that the application of ocean circulation models, combined with process-based modeling of carcass persistence and detection, can improve estimates of MME magnitude.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.308
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicHealth and Conflict Studies→French-language works237,207→