MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7008075400

Applications of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Conducting Mesocarnivore and Breeding Waterfowl Surveys in Southern Manitoba

2020· article· en· W7008075400 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCivil War Book Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUAV Applications and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerial surveyWaterfowlWildlifePopulationQuadcopterAbundance (ecology)Survey methodologyDrone
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are becoming an increasingly important tool for wildlife surveys and equipping UAVs with thermal imaging cameras could make these surveys even more effective. In my thesis I examined the feasibility of using a UAV equipped with a thermal imaging camera to conduct mesocarnivore surveys, search for duck nests built over water, and conduct duck brood surveys in southern Manitoba.\nFor my first objective, I conducted nighttime mesocarnivore surveys with the UAV and thermal camera. I used a modified point-count survey from six waypoints and surveyed 29.5 ha in each replicate. I conducted a total of 200 flights over 53 survey nights during which I detected 32 mesocarnivores of eight different species. The UAV and thermal camera were effective at locating mesocarnivores, however given the large home ranges of mesocarnivores, my surveys should be considered estimates of minimum abundance and not a population census.\nFor my second objective I conducted a two-part survey: 1) I evaluated the effectiveness of a UAV and thermal camera to locate duck nests relative to traditional surveys, and 2) tested the hypothesis that technician visits to nests may influence predation rates. Over the course of my 1st study the UAV located a total of 47 nests that were not located by technicians, however, the technicians located 164 nests missed by the UAV, and both survey methods located 71 of the same nests. There was also no difference in survival rates for nests monitored with the UAV versus those monitored by technicians. Though the UAV completed surveys faster than technicians, the usefulness of this technology was limited, because the UAV has a relatively low detection rates.\nMy third objective was to evaluate the efficacy of using a UAV and thermal camera to conduct brood surveys. In 2018 and 2019, the UAV and thermal camera located a total of 1569 broods, compared to 666 located by ground technicians, and had higher detection rates (0.48 vs. 0.20). The UAV reliably located twice as many broods as ground technicians and completed surveys four times faster, indicating this technology has great utility for waterfowl biologists.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCivil War Book ReviewSame topicUAV Applications and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207