MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090357979 · doi:10.1525/auk.2009.09134

Effects of Forest Management on Postfledging Survival of Rose-breasted Grosbeaks (<i>Pheucticus ludovicianus</i>)

2010· article· en· W2090357979 on OpenAlexaff
Levi C. Moore, Bridget J. M. Stutchbury, Dawn M. Burke, Ken A. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Auk · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenileBiologyNest (protein structural motif)FledgePopulationEcologyFecundityForestryDemographyGeographyHatching

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many studies have examined the effects of forest fragmentation and management on songbird nesting success, but few have quantified postfledging survival, which is a critical component of population productivity. In 2005–2006, we estimated daily postfledging survival of Rose-breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus) by radiotracking 42 fledglings in forest fragments that had been managed by single-tree selection, by diameter-limit harvest, or as reference (not harvested for at least 25 years). Survival probability over the 3-week fledgling period was 0.62, and 86% of total fledgling mortality occurred during the first week out of the nest. Despite large differences in forest structure between forest management treatments, there was no effect of forest treatment on fledgling survival. Date of fledging, shrub cover, and patch size also had limited influence on fledgling survival. For all sites combined, females produced an estimated 0.23–0.37 recruiting daughters per year for the worst- and best-case scenarios of female fecundity and annual juvenile survival, which is lower than the expected annual mortality rate of breeding females (0.40–0.55). Even reference sites did not produce enough offspring to offset annual female mortality, which suggests that forest fragments in this region are population sinks.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations39
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AukSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207