Misleading correlations: The case of the Canada warbler and spruce budworm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In a recently published article Sleep et al. () suggested that 30‐yr declines in Canada warbler (1975–2005) based on Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data could be attributed to 30‐yr declines in spruce budworm through a series of analyses based principally on correlations. We demonstrate that the relationship does not hold when a longer‐term data set (1968–2008) is used for the analysis. Sleep et al. () also demonstrated a positive relationship between correlations of Canada warbler abundance and time and spruce budworm defoliation and time using provincial data sets. We examined the underlying BBS data and found that there were insufficient observations of Canada warbler in the western provinces (Alberta and Manitoba) to support the conclusion because most Canada warbler observations occurred far (>100 km) from any budworm defoliation. As well, we used a density‐dependent stochastic population growth model as proposed by Sleep et al. () and found only 2 significant relationships (Nova Scotia, Alberta) between Canada warbler population growth rate and budworm defoliation at the provincial scale. We conclude that little analytical evidence exists to support the idea that Canada warbler decline is a function of spruce budworm decline. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.
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 | 0.024 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".