NEST-SITE SELECTION OF ROSE-BREASTED GROSBEAKS IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rose-breasted Grosbeaks (Pheucticus ludovicianus) commonly breed in the deciduous woodlands of southern Ontario, but have become a species of conservation concern due to recent population declines (2% per year in Ontario from 1966 to 2004). We investigated whether habitat alterations may be contributing to these declines through decreases in nest survival at nest and randomly selected sites in 23 woodlots varying in the intensity of partial harvest. Rose-breasted Grosbeaks consistently selected nest sites with more sapling cover, less canopy cover, and a lower surrounding basal area than available. The best supported model of daily nest survival included a measure of nest concealment, with the top 15 models containing nest concealment indicating higher nest survival rates at less concealed nests. Model-averaged estimates produced positive slopes for canopy cover, sapling cover, and nest height indicating higher survival at higher canopy cover, sapling cover, and nest height. Heavy-cutting practices appear to create woodlots that act as ecological traps. These woodlots provide “preferred” nest sites that result in low nest survival probabilities for the Rose-breasted Grosbeak.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".