MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7103621578

SURVEYS AND POPULATION ESTIMATES OF A DISTINCTIVE SUBPOPULATION OF\nSANDHILL CRANES IN THE FRASER RIVER LOWLANDS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

2022· article· W7103621578 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInsecta mundi · 2022
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSandhillAerial surveyOverwinteringTransectPopulationWetlandWaterfowlSurvey methodology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A poorly understood subpopulation of sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) breeds at scattered locations in the lower Fraser River Valley on the south coast of British Columbia. The area also harbors the northernmost population of overwintering sandhill cranes anywhere in its range. While sporadic monitoring has been carried out since the mid-1960s, no formal survey efforts have been attempted for the entire Fraser River lowland subpopulation. During 2014-2019 we collected groundbased survey data on presence and occupation of territories within the study area; this effort was supported by citizen science contributions. On 20 June 2019, we flew a fixed-width, aerial transect survey over known breeding areas. Transects were flown over 6 wetlands known to historically or currently support sandhill cranes but that were too large or difficult to survey on foot. Combined aerial and ground surveys estimated that only 12 breeding pairs and an estimated subpopulation size of approximately 30 individuals were present during the survey year. These survey data represent the first coordinated effort to estimate the Fraser River lowland population of sandhill cranes. Further research and conservation effort is required for this subpopulation given its perilously small breeding population, seemingly low recruitment, and growing urban pressures on remaining habitat.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsecta mundiSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207