Population Estimate and Habitat Assosciations of the Long-Billed Curlew (<i>Numenius americanus</i>) in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A random stratified sample was employed within the Grassland Natural Region to estimate the population of long-billed curlews (Numenius americanus) in Alberta. Sample units were 32km long and 0.8km wide and most were centered along minor roads. A total of 110 sample units were surveyed for curlews between April 30th and June 8th, 2001. From these surveys a population estimate was derived: 11,942 curlew males (95% confidence interval of 9,560 - 14,323) or, assuming an equal sex ratio, 23,884 individual curlews (95% confidence interval of 19,122 - 28,646). As the Parkland Natural Region was not surveyed and there are records of curlews nesting in the region in low numbers, the total Alberta population would be slightly higher than there calculated in this study. Examination of Breeding Bird Survey data suggests that curlew populations in Alberta may be gradually declining, although this trend is not statistically significant.\nA positive relationship between long-billed curlews and native grassland was found: More curlews were found in townships with the highest levels of grassland. Across all sample units the number of curlews was positively correlated with the amount of native grassland in the sample unit. Finally, where native grassland was abundant, curlews preferentially selected the native grassland over cultivated fields and tame pasture. However, curlews were also found to occut in areas with little or no native grassland.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".