MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Functional Homogenization Effect of Urbanization on Bird Communities

2007· article· en· W2056799074 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vincent Devictor, Romain Julliard, Denis Couvet, Alexandre Lee, Frédéric Jiguet

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill UniversityMesothelioma Applied Research Foundation
KeywordsHomogenization (climate)UrbanizationGeographyEcologyBiodiversityBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the community richness and dynamics of birds in landscapes recently affected by urbanization to test the prediction that biotic communities living in degraded landscapes are increasingly composed of generalist species. We analyzed bird communities in 657 plots monitored by the French Breeding Bird Survey from 2001 to 2005, accounting for the probability of species detection and spatial autocorrelation. We used an independent land-cover program to assess urbanization intensity in each FBBS plot, from 1992 to 2002. We found that urbanization induced community homogenization and that populations of specialist species became increasingly unstable with increasing urbanization of the landscape. Our results emphasize that urbanization has a substantial impact on the spatial component of communities and highlight the destabilizing effect of urbanization on communities over time. These results illustrate that urbanization may be a strong driving force in functional community composition and that measuring community homogenization is a powerful tool in the assessment of the effects of landscape changes and thus aides sustainable urban planning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations345
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207