The Rumsfeld Paradigm: Knowns and Unknowns in Characterizing Habitats Used by the Endangered Sharp-tailed Snake, <em>Contia tenuis</em>, in Southwestern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sharp-tailed Snake, Contia tenuis, has a small and highly fragmented range in British Columbia, where it is considered endangered. Known sites are few in number and generally small in spatial extent; numbers of snakes apparently are correspondingly low. Furthermore, most known sites for the species are on private lands in areas that are fairly heavily developed or being developed. Thus, the species is under serious threat of habitat alteration or loss. Although land stewardship has been a valuable conservation tool in this case, we also need to identify the key habitat requirements of Sharp-tailed Snakes to identify potential new sites, modify former or potential ones, or even create new ones. In this study, we compared sites known to harbour Sharp-tailed Snakes with those that seemed subjectively similar and therefore potentially suitable. We also compared these known and potential sites with randomly chosen nearby locations. Variability of most measured features was high, both within and among site/location categories. Nonetheless, we found significant differences between known and potential sites and between those locations and random ones. Overall, locations known to be used by snakes had a more southerly aspect, more rock cover, shallower soil and litter, and less shrub cover than other sites. This study was constrained by the small number of known sites for Sharp-tailed Snakes in southwestern British Columbia, making our conclusions suggestive rather than definitive. Future work should incorporate additional variables. It also might be useful to undertake comparative habitat studies elsewhere in the range of the Sharp-tailed Snake where it is more common.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".