Preliminary effects of UAS angle of approach on escape responses of a large-bodied raptor
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal responses to unoccupied aircraft systems (UAS) can be exploited to reduce human-wildlife conflicts. We investigated how same-level UAS approaches (0°) would be perceived by Turkey Vultures ( Cathartes aura; “vultures”) compared to stoop approaches (20° descent 50 m away) given the directness of the approach. We measured the % of animals that escaped, escape time, flight-initiation distance horizontally and diagonally, vulture remaining index (index of the number of vultures remaining after treatment by the number present before), and latency to return by vultures at a landfill in response to UAS approaches. All vultures exposed to same-level approaches escaped on the first approach, whereas escape occurred in 73% of stoop approaches. When vultures escaped, they did so 1.69 s faster and over 11 and 15 m greater horizontal and diagonal escape distances when exposed to stoop approaches. Vultures exposed to stoop approaches showed over 31 min longer latencies. Our results, though limited by sample size, indicate that stoop approaches might pose greater perceived risk to vultures.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it