MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1904289883 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v119i4.178

A Survey for Federally Listed Grassland Birds at First Nations Reserves

2005· article· en· W1904289883 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Scott D. Stevens, Troy I. Wellicome

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThreatened speciesButeoEndangered speciesGrasslandShrikeGeographyEcologyNest (protein structural motif)Breeding bird surveyHabitatCynomys ludovicianusPrairie dogBiologyPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We surveyed native and non-native grassland for federally listed grassland bird species at Reserves and/or Treaty Land Entitlements (TLE) belonging to five First Nations in the prairie ecozone of Canada. Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis – of special concern), Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus – threatened), and Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus – of special concern) were observed at five of 335, three of 361, and five of 329 survey points within their respective geographic ranges. Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii – threatened) was observed at 69 of 361 survey points and accounted for 84% of sites with listed birds. Estimates of proportions of native and non-native grassland within 400 m of survey points indicated that Sprague’s Pipit preferred native grassland. Despite special effort, the Burrowing Owl (Athene culicularia – endangered) was not observed, although a nest from a previous year was encountered. We recorded the greatest number of species and individuals on reserves located in mixed and moist-mixed grasslands that contained large portions of native grassland. In many instances, field assessments revealed unsuitable habitat at sites that remote-sensing data classified as suitable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207