Not just any old pile of dirt: evaluating the use of artificial nesting mounds as conservation tools for freshwater turtles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The viability of freshwater turtle populations is largely dependent on the survivorship of reproducing females but females are frequently killed on roads as they move to nesting sites. Installing artificial nesting mounds may increase recruitment and decrease the risk of mortality for gravid females by enticing them to nest closer to aquatic habitats. We evaluated the effectiveness of artificial nesting mounds installed in Algonquin Park, Canada. Artificial mounds were monitored for 2 years to determine if turtles would select them for nest sites. We also simulated turtle paths from wetlands to nests to determine the probability that females would encounter the new habitat. A transplant experiment with clutches of Chrysemys picta and Chelydra serpentina eggs compared nest success and incubation conditions in the absence of predation between artificial mounds and natural sites. More turtles than expected used the artificial mounds, although mounds comprised a small proportion of the available nesting habitat and the simulations predicted that the probability of females encountering mounds was low. Hatching success was higher in nests transplanted to artificial mounds (93%) than in natural nests (56%), despite no differences in heat units. Greater use than expected, high hatching success, and healthy hatchlings emerging from nests in artificial mounds suggest promise for their use as conservation tools.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it