Insights into detection probability of forest bird surveys from comparison of in-person and passive acoustic monitoring point counts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Historically, research and monitoring of bird populations has been conducted with in-person point counts; however, passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) recordings transcribed by experts (“PAM point counts”) are rapidly replacing in-person surveys as an approach for counting birds. We reviewed the literature and used case-matched datasets from North America’s boreal forest to show that despite similarities in data structure, in-person and PAM point counts have fundamental differences in the detection process that lead to differences in detectability estimates from distance and removal sampling models. Observer effects on cue rate were more pronounced in PAM than in-person point counts. Cue rate estimates from PAM were significantly higher than from point counts due to earlier time of first detection in PAM point counts, the availability of data with higher-resolution time intervals in removal models, and the exclusion of visual detections. In contrast, exclusion of visual detections from point-count data estimates resulted in lower estimates of perceptibility. Cumulative lower values of detectability estimates from in-person point counts resulted in 15% higher density estimates on average when applied as statistical offsets. We suggest some of the differences in detectability estimates between survey methods are due to human error and/or failure of statistical assumptions and that availability estimates for species that are at least 90% aurally-detected should be preferentially derived from PAM data to reduce bias in density estimates for conservation applications and facilitate continued integration of historic and contemporary point-count datasets. Future research should focus on alternatives to removal modeling and understanding the detection process of automated classifiers to continue to improve detectability estimates and maximize the ability to integrate datasets across data types.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".