MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are forest birds categorised as “edge species” strictly associated with edges?

2003· article· en· W2029551956 on OpenAlexafffund
Louis Imbeau, Pierre Drapeau, Mikko Mönkkönen

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAcademy of FinlandUniversité du Québec à Montréal
KeywordsGeneralist and specialist speciesHabitatEcologyShrublandGeographyHabitat fragmentationRange (aeronautics)BiomeContext (archaeology)BiologyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, studies of bird‐habitat relationships undertaken in the context of habitat fragmentation have led to the widespread use of species categorisation according to their response to edge alongside mature forest patches (edge species, interior species, interior‐edge generalist species). In other research contexts, especially in less fragmented landscapes dominated by a forested land base in various age classes, bird‐habitat relationships are often described in relation to their use of various successional stages (early‐successional species, mature forest species, generalist species). A simple comparison of these two commonly‐used classifications schemes in a close geographical range for 60 species in eastern North America as well as for 36 species in north‐western Europe clearly reveals that in these two particular biomes the two classifications are not independent. We believe that this association is not only a semantic issue and has important ecological consequences. For example, almost all edge species are associated with early‐successional habitats when a wide range of forest age‐classes are found in a given area. Accordingly, we suggest that most species considered to prefer edge habitats in agricultural landscapes are in fact only early‐successional species that could not find shrubland conditions apart from the exposed edges of mature forest fragments. To be considered a true edge species, a given species should require the simultaneous availability of more than one habitat type and consequently should be classified as a habitat generalist in its use of successional stages. However, 28 out of 30 recognised edge species were considered habitat specialists in terms of successional status. Based on these results, we conclude that “real edge species” are probably quite rare and that we should make a difference between true edge species and species which in some landscapes, happen to find their habitat requirements on edges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcographySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207