Comparative Permeability of Roads, Rivers, and Meadows to Songbirds in Banff National Park
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Roads exert a variety of negative effects on wildlife and one of the most severe may be that they form barriers to animal movement. However, the role of roads as barriers has seldom been compared to that of natural barriers. I examined the permeability of roads, rivers, and meadows to songbirds in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada, where a four‐lane highway dissects a wide montane valley. An audio recording of a chickadee ( Poecile atricapillus ) mobbing call was played to lure birds to travel either parallel or perpendicular to the three barrier types over a range of distances. Relative to parallel trials, forest‐dependent birds were reluctant to cross rivers but not roads or meadows, and they crossed barriers less often when the barriers were noisy. Across all gap and barrier combinations, responses declined as trial distance increased, and kinglets were less likely to respond than other families, which included chickadees, nuthatches, warblers, and corvids. The responses of sparrows and thrushes—both forest generalists—showed a weak interaction between barrier type and family, indicating that robins were slightly less likely to respond to trials associated with meadows, and sparrows were less likely to respond in association with rivers. These associations occurred irrespective of gap configuration. Together, these results suggest that the response to barriers by montane birds is strongly dependent on their degree of forest dependence. The surprising result that forest birds were less likely to cross rivers than either roads or meadows may stem from evolutionary history and suggests that birds do not perceive the risk of mortality posed by road traffic.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".