Analyzing Fatal Bird-Window Collision Mitigation Occurring at the Classroom and Student Services Building, Brigham City, UT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bird-window collisions are often not thought about as if they are a major problem to bird populations worldwide. This is not the case as bird populations are threatened by these collisions. In the United States alone it is estimated that 97.6 - 975.6 million birds fatally collide with human-made windows annually, and another 16 to 42 million collide in Canada per year. Our focus is to investigate a possible window collision problem and explore different mitigation efforts to prevent these collisions at the USU-Brigham City campus (Brigham City, Utah, 84302). We hope to determine how many fatal bird-window collisions are occurring on an annual basis. We are completing a daily census and already have data from previous years; however, those data cover only August to December, so our census will run for 12 months. Once enough information and data are collected, we plan to determine which types of mitigation efforts work best given the climate, location and behaviors of the local bird populations. We predict that large open windows with foliage nearby to be hotspots given previous data. These hotspots will be important locations to test out different mitigation efforts to be able to determine what works best to mitigate fatal bird window-collisions. When this is complete we plan to test the effects of our mitigation efforts by continuing the census. We also plan to educate the community on how to prevent these collisions at their own homes as more than 50 percent of collisions are on residential properties through outreach programs and activities that are forth coming. Presentation Time: Wednesday, 11 a.m.-12 p.m.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".