Are temperate mixedwood forests perceived by birds as a distinct forest type?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forestry practices used in mixedwood forests have led to a reduction of the availability of mixedwood stands and to a simplification of the forest mosaic, with unknown consequences on wildlife. We assessed bird occurrences at different spatial scales (50-, 100-, and 1000-m radius) in response to coniferous, deciduous, and mixedwood stands within the Quebec balsam fir yellow birch domain. Our objective was to evaluate whether birds perceive temperate mixedwood forests as distinct from deciduous and coniferous forests. We quantified bird occurrence at 57 observation points and determined habitat composition from forest maps. At the 50-, 100-, and 1000-m scales, the occurrence of two, four, and four species, respectively, was positively related to mixedwood stands. Among them the Blackburnian Warbler, the Northern Parula, the Black-throated Blue Warbler, and the Ovenbird responded at more than one scale. Some species were also influenced by coniferous and deciduous stands at the three spatial scales. Mixedwood stands were positively associated with the occurrence of many species and moreover were preferred over coniferous or deciduous stands by some species. These results support our hypothesis that mixedwood forests are distinct habitats and provide a new justification for preserving this forest type.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".