A hierarchical dependent double-observer method for estimating waterfowl breeding pairs abundance from helicopters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We applied a dependent double-observer method for helicopter surveys and developed a hierarchical Bayesian model as a means to adjust counts of waterfowl for incomplete detection. We conducted our study using 52 plots in Labrador, Canada. A designated pair of primary observers reported counts and location of all waterfowl flocks that they detected to a pair of secondary observers, including details regarding the species, age and sex of observed birds. Secondary observers then reported any additional flocks observed by them but missed by the primary observers. The pairs of observers alternated between primary and secondary roles during the course of the survey, as well as position (front or back) within the helicopter. We used hierarchical Bayesian models to estimate detection probabilities of waterfowl flocks, as well as derive species-specific detection-corrected abundance and sex composition estimates of flocks. The hierarchical model output allowed us to derive estimates of indicated breeding pairs for each species in the survey area corrected for incomplete detection. Observers seated in the back of the helicopter had higher detection probabilities (0.89; 90% Bayesian Credible Intervals [BCI] = 0.82 – 0.95) than those in the front (0.74; 90% BCI = 0.66 – 0.83), and observer experience had a limited effect on detection. Total crew detection probabilities ranged between 0.99 (90% BCI = 0.97 – 1.00) and 0.97(90% BCI = 0.94 – 0.99), depending on the individual observers’ position and role in the helicopter. Detection probabilities were higher for sea ducks and diving ducks and lower for dabbling ducks. Observers generally missed less than 5% of the total indicated pairs for all species. We recommend that detection in helicopter surveys be measured to control for observer turnover, observer experience, and aircraft-related differences in visibility.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".