Movement patterns and relative abundance of coastal tailed frogs in clearcuts and mature forest stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age-specific movements, abundance, and capture rates of coastal tailed frogs (Ascaphus truei Stejneger) were compared between clearcuts and mature forests in southwestern British Columbia, Canada, during 1998 and 1999 using pitfall traps and drift-fence arrays. Total frog abundance was similar in both habitat types. More adults were caught in mature stands than in clearcuts, but there was no significant difference for immatures. Analysis of numbers of frogs captured indicated that the direction of movement did not differ between habitat types for any age-class. Frogs were captured at similar frequencies across distance from stream in both habitats. These findings suggest that there are age-specific differences in tailed frog abundance in clearcuts along streams without riparian reserves relative to mature forests. Variation among sites had a greater influence than habitat type on the number of immatures. Low proportions of adults in clearcuts suggested that immatures may be transient or that they incurred high rates of mortality. Age-specific differences in habitat use by tailed frogs indicated that total numbers alone are insufficient to determine the effect of forest management on habitat suitability for tailed frogs.
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 | 0.000 | 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".