MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145679494 · doi:10.1139/z04-012

Habitat selection by the wood turtle (<i>Clemmys insculpta</i>) at the northern limit of its range

2004· article· en· W2145679494 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Martin Arvisais, Esther Lévesque, Jean-Claude Bourgeois, Claude Daigle, Denis Masse, Jacques Jutras

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersParks CanadaFordham University
KeywordsHabitatEcologyAlderTurtle (robot)BiologyRange (aeronautics)Home rangeShrub

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We characterized the chronology of habitat use by the wood turtle, Clemmys insculpta (LeC., 1829), in the Mauricie region of Quebec, Canada. We also determined if this species used habitats according to availability within a home range and identified habitat features influencing habitat selection. Habitats were characterized for 20 wood turtles followed weekly by telemetry during the active season of 1997. Turtles used a great diversity of terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Alder (Alnus rugosa (Du Roi) Spreng.) stands were the most used terrestrial habitats throughout the active season. Habitat use varied according to activity period. Indeed, wood turtles used aquatic habitats and alder stands during prenesting and prehibernation activity periods, whereas all habitat types were used during nesting and postnesting activity periods. Wood turtles did not use habitats randomly within their home ranges, suggesting that they selected them. Wood turtles seemed to select mixed forest stands that were relatively young (16 years), short (1–4 m), had low arborescent cover (25%), moderate cover of the upper shrub layer (35%), and low total canopy closure (0%–50%). This knowledge will be helpful in the establishment of future conservation measures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations37
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207