MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7064646086

Bird of Prey Migration in the Greater Toronto Area

2019· other· en· W7064646086 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueYork University Digital Library (York University) · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessMarshPredationDiversity (politics)BiodiversityDiversity indexBird migrationFauna
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Topography is known to factor into the migration patterns of birds of prey. As topography changes to reflect changing land use and urbanization, it becomes important to assess migrating species biodiversity. In this paper I attempt to evaluate how Lake Ontario, as a topographic barrier for the southbound autumn migrating birds of prey, impacts local bird of prey biodiversity. Using data collected by volunteers from four Hawk Watch groups in the Greater Toronto Area I evaluated species richness and diversity for each of the sites. In this, I found that Cranberry Marsh had the greatest Shannon-Weiner diversity index values among the four groups. It is therefore the site with the greatest biodiversity, a result contrary to my hypothesis. I followed this analysis with a comparison of species between three sites: High Park, Cranberry Marsh, and Iroquois Shoreline. Overall, I found a great amount of consistency between all sites, rather than High Park reporting the greatest numbers which was expected. Given the proximity of each study site to each other this result suggests a strong tendency for successful repeatability using the conventional Hawk Watch methodology. Further studies on methodological accuracy, as well as integration of citizen science generated knowledge for use in ecological studies are possible points of investigation to build upon for future research.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.155
Teacher spread0.145 · 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.

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYork University Digital Library (York University)Same topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207