Characteristics and densities of Williamson’s Sapsucker nest trees in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We characterized Williamson’s Sapsucker ( Sphyrapicus thyroideus (Cassin, 1852)) nest trees in southern British Columbia from 1995 to 2008 to determine the nesting requirements of this endangered species in Canada. In the East Kootenay (n = 32) and the Okanagan (n = 157) regions where western larch ( Larix occidentalis Nutt.) occurred, 81% and 75% of the nest trees were western larch, respectively. In regions west of the Okanagan Valley where western larch did not occur (n = 73), 77% of the nest trees were trembling aspen ( Populus tremuloides Michx.). Conifer nest trees were larger (72 cm DBH), on average, than broad-leaved nest trees (35 cm DBH), and this pattern was consistent across the breeding range of Williamson’s Sapsucker. Live western larch >67 cm DBH with either broken or dead tops were the trees with the highest frequency (20%) among the trees estimated to be suitable for nesting, primarily because these larch tended to be infected with heart rots. Based on observed densities, targets should be 1.36 suitable nest trees/ha in managed stands, although in many instances such as aspen patches, this target will only be met in portions of the nesting territories. The recommended stand structure for long-term maintenance of high nest-tree density in western larch stands is for ≥20 trees/ha with DBHs >57 cm and 60–150 trees/ha with DBHs >22 cm.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".