Selection of lake habitats by waterbirds in the boreal transition zone of northeastern Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined habitat characteristics associated with presence or absence of 16 waterbird species on 113 lakes during 2001–2006. We found that piscivorous species such as pelicans, loons, and mergansers were found on fish-bearing lakes, while birds that typically nest in emergent vegetation (e.g., coots, grebes) strongly preferred water bodies with moderate to high levels of emergent macrophytes. The presence of a riparian buffer was important for loons and several species of waterbird that nest on the backshore. Moderate to deep lake depth and high water clarity also were important for some species and likely associated with hunting habits and (or) fish availability. Breeding-occurrence models were developed for a few conspicuous species that could be sampled using aerial surveys. Surprisingly, changes in water levels were not important predictors for most species, and associations between waterbirds and high levels of recreational activity were unexpected. Common Loon ( Gavia immer (Brunnich, 1764)) and Great Blue Heron ( Ardea herodias L., 1758) were most sensitive to anthropogenic activities, with fewer of these species detected on lakes with more disturbed shorelines.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".