MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6944099547 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/2mjvx

Using UAVs in seabird research & monitoring: workshop at the 14th International Seabird Group Conference 2018

2018· article· en· W6944099547 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeabirdDroneAerial surveyCitizen scienceBest practiceNorm (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using UAVs in seabird research & monitoring: workshop at the 14th International Seabird Group Conference 2018 Organisers: Matt Wood (University of Gloucestershire) & Matty Murphy (Natural Resources Wales) Workshop outline: Rapidly advancing drone technology offers opportunities and challenges to both seabird researchers and the relevant regulatory bodies. This workshop will bring together experts in the practise and policy of using UAVs for seabirds, to share best practise on the design of UAV surveys to capture useful imagery whilst minimising disturbance. We aim to combine our experience with UAVs, to guide their future use and inform the development of policy. Participants will gain: - Insights on how to carry out an effective UAV survey whilst minimising disturbance to seabirds - Understanding of the regulatory framework that UAV users must follow - Opportunity to feed into a review of best practice in the use of UAVs for seabird surveys Time: 1400-1530 (1730, Monday 3 September 2018 Location: Central Teaching Hub, University of Liverpool Programme: Case studies of the use of UAVs with seabirds: Start: Matt Wood (University of Gloucestershire) Intro & Welcome 3min 45s: Norm Ratcliffe (BAS) A seabirder’s guide to UAVs 31min: Matty Murphy (NRW) UAVs and environmental law 46min: Robin Ward (NIRAS) Drone-captured still imagery to survey cliff-nesting seabirds at Flamborough & Filey pSPA 1h 03min: Graham Rush, Megan Stone, Lucy Clarke & Matt Wood (University of Gloucestershire). Semi-automated counts of breeding gulls 1h 18min 30s: Alex Banks & Alex Kilcoyne (Natural England). The use of UAVs to count inland breeding Lesser Black-backed Gulls in the Forest of Bowland 1h 33min 45s: Andy Webb (HiDef Aerial Surveying) Census of nesting common gulls in Aberdeenshire 1h 43min 50s: Kyle Elliot (McGill University). The use of UAV’s to count cliff-nesting seabirds in North America Recordings of presentations: Part 1: https://youtu.be/RmkBt4MLYdY Part 2: https://youtu.be/pbVB0_PiMvE (last 7 minutes of Kyle Elliot's presentation) A Seabirder's Guide to UAVs (Norm Ratcliffe, 25 mins) https://youtu.be/FEx0fcCKszM

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4440.844

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.133 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)Same topicDiverse Scientific and Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207