MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410141890 · doi:10.1139/dsa-2024-0017

Evaluation of a drone to map and monitor critical habitat features for the Sage Thrasher (<i>Oreoscoptes montanus</i>)

2025· article· en· W4410141890 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rhonda L. Millikin, Todd Manning, Ruth Joy, Darcy C. Henderson, Megan Harrison, Jason Komaromi, Brad Danielson

Bibliographic record

VenueDrone Systems and Applications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDroneSAGEBiologyPhysicsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Habitat destruction is the leading cause of global biodiversity loss. To recover endangered species requires knowing the habitat elements that are essential to their survival, defined as critical habitat. This paper demonstrates the application of unoccupied aerial vehicles (UAVs), for the recovery of habitat for endangered species. We establish a replicable methodology for surveying and monitoring potentially suitable nest shrubs for Sage Thrashers ( Oreoscoptes montanus) using an Aeryon SkyRanger. We trialed the methodology in winter when operational demands are minimal and before the birds return to breed. We found drone image analysis aligned well with field assessments of Artemisia tridentata height and may present a cost-efficient approach for mapping and monitoring critical habitat features for nesting Sage Thrashers. The UAV classification accuracy was 100% for nest shrubs and 85% for non-nest shrubs ( p-value &lt; 0.001). We found the UAV-based method over-estimated the height of shrubs compared to the field-based measurements, where the 80 cm threshold for a suitable shrub corresponded to 73 cm as measured in the field (regression slope of 1.43, with an adjusted R 2 = 0.75, p-value &lt; 0.0001). The approach also holds promise for other sagebrush steppe species of conservation concern.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrone Systems and ApplicationsSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207