MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133697124 · doi:10.22230/jem.2015v15n1a581

Observations and Considerations on Appropriate Buffer Zones and Limiting Disturbance to Nesting Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) During a Large Scale Construction Project

2015· article· en· W2133697124 on OpenAlexafffund
James S. Baxter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecosystems and Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsBC Hydro (Canada)
FundersBC Hydro
KeywordsCharadriusDisturbance (geology)LimitingNesting (process)Scale (ratio)GeographyEnvironmental resource managementEcologyEnvironmental scienceEngineeringBiologyCartographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

hen nesting birds are present, it is important to establish buffer zones around bird nests that appropriately reflect different levels of human disturbance.In general, buffer zone size will depend on the bird species, the amount of time and level of disturbance intensity to which a nest will be exposed (Blumstein et al. 2003(Blumstein et al. , 2005) ) and, in some cases, the professional judgement of the environmental professional on a project.A survey of the literature can provide examples of varying buffer zone distances for the same species (Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2013), but limited information exists on the success of different buffer zone distances by species on hatching success.The killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) is a medium-sized plover found in British Columbia during the spring and summer, when it migrates north to nest (Campbell et al. 1997).The species is a ground-nester in varied habitats that are often highly susceptible to disturbance.One typical location is on gravel bars along watercourses where the eggs are camouflaged in the nest (see Photo 1), and the adults have quick access to foraging locations.As a ground-nester, killdeer nests can be highly susceptible to disturbance, and noted impacts to ground-nesters include road construction (Forman & Alexander 1998), agricultural practices (Shuttler et al. 2000), and physical disturbance of the nest site by humans and animals in proximity to the nest (Langston et al. 2007).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ecosystems and ManagementSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207