Has the Western Chorus Frog (<em>Pseudacris triseriata</em>) Declined in Western Ottawa, Ontario?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine whether the Western Chorus Frog has declined in western Ottawa, we conducted auditory surveys at historical locations as well as at various other wetlands. Western Chorus Frogs were detected at 12 of 18 historical locations. Wetland habitat remained at all historical locations where the species was not detected. There was no difference in the year of historical records for sites where Western Chorus Frogs were (median 1987.5) and were not (median 1987.5) detected. In the present study, Western Chorus Frogs were also detected at 30 locations where they had not been previously reported. Historical sites where Western Chorus Frogs were not detected were not significantly farther away from known Western Chorus Frog sites (median distance: 2.2 km) than historical sites where Western Chorus Frogs were detected (median distance: 1.4 km). Land use variables for historical sites where Western Chorus Frogs were and were not detected did not vary significantly at any spatial scale from 0.5 to 2.0 km. Western Chorus Frogs were detected in areas with up to 50% forest cover and up to 86% agricultural cover at the 1.0-km radius. The lack of historical data makes it difficult to assess the current status of the Western Chorus Frog in western Ottawa. The species may have declined, remained approximately the same (by shifting to different breeding sites), or even increased its distribution (by colonizing additional sites).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".