MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148586133 · doi:10.1139/x04-126

Terrestrial movements of juvenile and adult tailed frogs in relation to timber harvest in coastal British Columbia

2004· article· en· W2148586133 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Tanya Rhoda Wahbe, Fred L. Bunnell, R. Bruce Bury

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSTREAMSHabitatJuvenileEcologyClearcuttingGeographyPopulationFisheryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei Stejneger) populations are at risk in much of the Pacific Northwest, and recolonization of sites may be slow postlogging. To examine the terrestrial movements of Ascaphus in clearcuts and old growth, we employed pitfall traps and drift-fence arrays installed along streams and 100 m into upland habitat. In the fall, we captured frogs farther from streams in old growth than in clearcuts, and more frogs were captured ≤25 m from streams in clearcuts. Stronger stream affinity in clearcuts was most evident with juvenile frogs, which exhibited more upstream movements than adults. Compared with inland sites where frogs remained close to streams (e.g., 12 m), frogs at our coastal sites were captured at greater distances from streams (≥100 m), having lower stream affinity than frogs at inland sites. Long-distance overland movements appear more likely where forested stands are present. Aggregations of Ascaphus at individual streams may not represent distinct populations and should not be managed as distinct units. Preserving groups of interconnected streams within watersheds instead of individual streams will improve the conservation status of Ascaphus. Population monitoring can ensure conservation measures promote long-term persistence.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations36
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207