Avian and paired Vegetation data from 100 Islands Project (BC Central Coast) Hakai Institute - 2015-2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data were collected to test the theory that marine-derived nutrients can affect insular species richness, population density, and community composition of terrestrial breeding birds. This dataset contains spreadsheets of (1) avian point count surveys, (2) vegetation surveys, (3) cleaned data used in Obrist et al. (2020), and (4) a sub-folder of data used in a community-level analysis by Obrist et al. (2022). This sub-folder contains data required to run a Hierarchical Modelling of Species Communities (HMSC) joint species distribution model. Each datafile has an associated metadata file. Bird point count survey data include: - 10 minute point count surveys from 99 islands from 2015, 2016 and 2017 survey periods - During each point count survey detections of individual birds were identified to species with distance to observer. Date, UTM coordinates, weather conditions, and detection type (e.g. visual, song, call, etc) information were recorded. Vegetation data include: - 1x1 m vegetation plots in the immediate vicinity of each point count location and - 5x5 m vegetation plots (3 per point count – 1 at the survey location, and 1 in either direction along the most obvious vegetation gradient around the point count.) 1x1 m vegetation surveys include: - Herbaceous plant percent cover by species in 3 layers: Ground (50 cm) 5x5 m vegetation surveys include: - Shrub percent cover by species in 3 layers: 200 cm - Canopy percent cover by species in 3 heights: subcanopy, canopy, and supercanopy. Heights are defined separately for each plot (in general plot description) - A general plot description including % litter, % coarse woody debris, UTM coordinates - Tree circumferences Cleaned data for Obrist et al. 2020 (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2020.0108) is executable with subsidized-avian-island-biogeography. R script from https://github.com/debobrist/avian-sib. Cleaned code for Obrist et al. 2022 is in the HMSC sub-folder, which includes: A site-by-species matrix derived from the bird point count survey data, a matrix of environmental covariates, a list of coordinates, and a list of bird species traits. These data can be run directly with code available at https://github.com/debobrist/subsidized_isl_bird_communities. Contact: Debora S. Obrist, Simon Fraser University, dobrist@sfu.ca
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".