MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095667364 · doi:10.32800/abc.2014.37.0127

Effects of migrations on the nestedness structure of bird assemblages in cays of the Jardines de la Reina archipelago, Cuba

2014· article· en· W2095667364 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Antonio García-Quintas, Alain Parada Isada

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Biodiversity and Conservation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Council for Canadian Studies
KeywordsNestednessArchipelagoEcologySpring (device)Null modelGeographyPhenologyBiologySpecies richness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nested subset hypothesis states that species in fragmented, less species–rich biotas are non–random subsets of those inhabiting richer sites. The effect of migration on these models has not been yet fully addressed. We compared the phenological stages of the community during the spring and fall migrations. Presence–absence data of bird species occurring at 43 cays of the Jardines de la Reina archipelago was compiled and two incidence matrices were built for fall and spring periods. The degree of nestedness was estimated based on the overlap and decreasing fill, and its significance was assessed by means of 1,000 replicates of four null models. Bird assemblages showed a higher number of species during fall (67) than they did in spring (51). They also showed a significant and stable pattern of nestedness, although this was slightly higher in spring. Seasonal fluctuations caused by migratory movements thus barely affected the nested structure of bird assemblages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.189
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Biodiversity and ConservationSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207