Woodpecker excavations suitability for and occupancy by cavity users in the boreal mixedwood forest of eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the boreal forest, where tree cavities are mainly excavated by woodpeckers, many holes are incomplete excavations that are not suitable cavities for most other cavity users that form nest webs. We assessed cavity suitability for and use by a community of primary excavators and secondary users in managed and unmanaged landscapes in the boreal mixedwood forest of eastern Canada. We compared ground surveys of tree holes with direct inspections of the inside of potential cavities in remnant habitats surrounded by cutover areas and in large tracts of unharvested forest. We found that ground surveys overestimated suitable cavity abundance: only 38% of the potential cavities detected by ground surveys were suitable for nesting in both managed and unmanaged landscapes. Ground surveys of active nests correctly detected a greater proportion of primary (93%) than secondary cavity nesters (48%). In nest webs such as those of the boreal forest, where cavities are mainly created by woodpeckers, our results indicate that a large proportion of holes detected from the ground are not suitable for cavity nesters, thus overestimating the actual availability of nest sites. Furthermore, when nest cavities are active, ground surveys are satisfactory for detecting primary cavity nesters, but they are inadequate for detecting secondary cavity nesters.
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".