Woodpeckers, decay, and the future of cavity‐nesting vertebrate communities worldwide
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
In forests worldwide, tree‐cavity supply can limit populations of the 10–40% of bird and mammal species that require cavities for nesting or roosting. Conservation efforts aimed at cavity‐using communities have often focused on woodpeckers because, as cavity excavators, they are presumed to control cavity supply. We show that avian excavators are the primary cavity producers in North America (77% of nesting cavities), but not elsewhere (26% in Eurasia and South America; 0% in Australasia). We studied survivorship of 2805 nest cavities and found similar persistence of cavities created by woodpeckers and those created by decay in Canada, but low persistence of woodpecker‐excavated cavities in Poland and Argentina. Outside of North America, the ephemeral nature of many woodpecker cavities may render most cavity‐using vertebrates critically dependent on the slow formation of cavities by damage and decay. The future of most cavity‐using communities will therefore be highly dependent on changing forest policies to stem the current loss of old trees.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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