Comparison of a Population of Eastern Red-backed Salamanders, <em>Plethodon cinereus</em>, under Native Dominant Wood Coverboards and Natural Cover Objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial cover objects or coverboards have been widely used to study Eastern Red-backed Salamanders (Plethodon cinereus), a species that is very abundant in eastern North America and known to be one of the most common vertebrates within its geographical range. However, recent studies have suggested that potential bias may be associated with the use of coverboards compared with natural cover objects. In this study, age structure and body size (weight and snout-vent length, SVL) of P. cinereus found under coverboards and natural cover objects at Lake Clair (Quebec, Canada) were compared. Coverboards were made of Sugar Maple (Acer sacchrum), a native forest species dominant in the study area. In 2004 and 2005, a total of 162 P. cinereus were found under coverboards, and 156 P. cinereus were found under natural cover objects. No significant difference in the age structure, mean weight, or SVL of P. cinereus was observed between the two sets. This study suggests that the type of coverboard used at Lake Clair is a good method to obtain an accurate index of P. cinereus population demographics, and is similar to that expected under natural cover objects. This technique should help to establish a standard protocol that could better allow direct comparisons among studies in the future. However, more studies are needed to explain the high proportion of adult specimens found under both cover types at Lake Clair relative to studies in other regions in North America.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".