MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Differential habitat use by Acadian Nelson's sharp-tailed sparrows: implications for regional conservation

2007· article· en· W1966299939 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joseph J. Nocera, Trina M. Fitzgerald, Alan Hanson, G. Randy Milton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Field Ornithology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of AgricultureAcadia UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsHabitatSalt marshBreedSubspeciesBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrows (Ammodramus nelsoni) that breed along the Atlantic coast of North America (Acadian subspecies subvirgatus) are considered saltmarsh specialists. However, these sparrows occasionally use upland habitats, such as hayfields. To evaluate the importance of hayfields as breeding habitat, we studied populations of A. n. subvirgatus in saltmarsh and hayfields in Nova Scotia, Canada, in 2004 and 2005. We monitored relative abundance and breeding phenology at 64 point-count stations (48 in hayfields and 16 in saltmarsh) and used an ordinal (0–5) observational index to quantify reproductive activity. A. n. subvirgatus showed more evidence of reproductive activity in saltmarsh (44% of point-count stations) than hayfields (28%; P= 0.07). However, there was no difference in either mean reproductive activity (saltmarsh = 0.83, hayfields = 0.53; P= 0.69) or mean relative abundance (saltmarsh = 0.27, hayfields = 0.26; P= 0.93). Although A. n. subvirgatus apparently breeds primarily in saltmarsh, hayfields appear to be an alternative breeding habitat. Use of hayfield habitat by A. n. subvirgtus, however, seems to vary between southern Maine and eastern Canada, suggesting that management plans will require approaches uniquely tailored to specific regions.

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)0.001
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 score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations29
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Field OrnithologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207