APPARENT SURVIVAL OF MALE OVENBIRDS IN FRAGMENTED AND FORESTED BOREAL LANDSCAPES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 1996 to 1999, apparent annual survival of male Ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapillus) was compared in forest fragments created by forestry (n = 3) and agriculture (n = 14) to plots in continuous boreal forest of central Saskatchewan (n = 3). For 398 male Ovenbirds, Cormack-Jolly-Seber models indicated that apparent annual survival was lower (34%) in small forest fragments (<15 ha) in the agricultural landscape than in forestry fragments (56%) or continuous forest (62%). Our results suggested that lower nesting and pairing success in small forest fragments caused individuals to permanently disperse in search of new territories, rather than fragmentation increasing mortality. Regardless of the mechanism, increased turnover of adult males altered the age structure of the population in small forest fragments, as more males were first-time breeders in fragments in the agricultural landscape (59%) than in forestry fragments (47%) or continuous forest (45%). Males recruited into fragments in the agricultural landscape were more likely (90%) to be first-time breeders than in forestry fragments (74%) or continuous forest (64%). Our results suggest that adult dispersal differs with the amount and type of fragmentation and may play an important role in the population dynamics of boreal forest songbird populations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".