MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Description of the explanatory variables used to predict the abundance of count of 5 species of dabbling ducks within a ∼ 11 km2 scale within the Prairie Pothole Region of the U.S. and Canada during 2002–2010.

2015· dataset· en· W6922781950 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2015
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval European History and Architecture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterfowlWildlifeAbundance (ecology)Pothole (geology)WetlandPopulationScale (ratio)Aerial surveyBreeding bird surveyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>These species included; blue-winged teal (Anas discors), gadwall (A. strepera), mallard (A. platyrhynchos), northern pintail (A. acuta), and northern shoveler (A. clypeata).</p><p>Footnote: data source abbreviations in order of appearance: National Wetlands Inventory (NWI); (CanVec); Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC); United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service Breeding Population Survey (BPOP); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Observation Data Portal (EODP), Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS); Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM); National Landcover Dataset (NLCD), Agriculture Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). All data layers are available from <a href="https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/535fa1aae4b078dca33ae3ad?community=LC+MAP+-+Landscape+Conservation+Management+and+Analysis+Portal" target="_blank">https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/535fa1aae4b078dca33ae3ad?community=LC+MAP+-+Landscape+Conservation+Management+and+Analysis+Portal</a>.</p><p>Description of the explanatory variables used to predict the abundance of count of 5 species of dabbling ducks within a ∼ 11 km2 scale within the Prairie Pothole Region of the U.S. and Canada during 2002–2010.</p>

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.142 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicMedieval European History and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207