THE IMPORTANCE OF COVER ROCK IN NORTHERN POPULATIONS OF THE FIVE-LINED SKINK (EUMECES FASCIATUS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although broad habitat preferences are known for many species of conservation concern, identification of key microhabitat elements critical to persistence and reproduction is a crucial and generally understudied aspect in conservation. In this study, we examined diurnal microsite selection in the five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) to identify important microhabitat elements in its most northerly populations. Seven populations distributed across the southern edge of the Canadian Shield were sampled. To determine which microhabitat elements are important in diurnal microsite selection, ten microhabitat features were compared in occupied and unoccupied quadrats. A Classification and Regression Tree analysis showed that the best predictor of E. fasciatus presence in a meter-by-meter quadrat was proportion of cover rock. This finding will help in modeling or identifying potential historical, current or future habitat in these most northern E. fasciatus populations, and aid population managers in monitoring the habitat suitability of extant five-lined skink populations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".