Factors affecting duck nesting in the aspen parklands : a spatial analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habitat fragmentation often has been cited as a cause for reduced reproductive success of grassland-nesting birds, including ducks, though results of many studies have been equivocal.As remotely sensed habitat data become increasingly available, an increased understanding of how habitat configurations affect demographic parameters will allow wildlife managers to make better decisions about habitat preservation and restoration.We used duck (Anas spp.) nesting data from 15 65-km2 study areas (n ≈6300 nests) dispersed throughout the aspen (Populus tremuloides) parklands of south-central Canada, to test hypotheses and build models that predict hatching rates and nest-site distributions in relation to landscape features.We constructed separate models using landscape features generated at 3 different spatial extents and using 3 different habitat classification schemes.Generalized linear mixed-modeling techniques were used to model hatching rates, and logistic regression was used to discriminate between nest location and random points.Information-theoretic techniques were used to select the best models.Hatching rates generally increased with habitat patch size, and with distance from habitat edge and nearest wetland though relationships were complex.Several interactions improved the fit of our models.We used life-history theory and models of hatching rates to construct hypotheses about how birds should choose nest sites.The same covariates that were useful for Ill
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".