Do male and female black‐backed woodpeckers respond differently to gaps in habitat?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used population- and individual-based genetic approaches to assess barriers to movement in black-backed woodpeckers (Picoides arcticus), a fire-specialist that mainly occupies the boreal forest in North America. We tested if male and female woodpeckers exhibited the same movement patterns using both spatially implicit and explicit genetic analyses to define population structure and movement patterns of both sexes among populations. Three genetic groups were identified, a large, genetically continuous population that spans from the Rocky Mountains to Quebec, a small isolated population in South Dakota and a separate population in the western portion of their distribution (Oregon). Patterns of genetic diversity suggest extensive gene flow mediated by both males and females within the continuous boreal forest. However, male-mediated gene flow is the main form of connectivity between the continuously distributed group and the smaller populations of South Dakota and Oregon that are separated by large areas of unforested habitat, which apparently serves as a barrier to movement of female woodpeckers.
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.
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 it