Distribution Patterns of Birds Associated with Snags in Natural and Managed Eastern Boreal Forests 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In boreal forests, several bird species use standing dead trees for feeding or nesting and depend on them for their survival. Studies on wildlife use of snags have shown that their availability is greatly influenced by the age of the forest and the type of perturbation (natural versus anthropogenic). Accordingly, cavity-nesting birds seem largely affected by these changes in availability of snags. In North American boreal forests, relationships between birds and dead wood availability have predominantly been documented in western forests. The dynamics of dead wood and the distribution patterns of birds associated with this habitat feature remain largely unknown in eastern black spruce forests. Distribution patterns of birds associated with dead wood were documented in the eastern black spruce forest of northwestern Quebec, Canada. Study areas were composed of four forest landscapes (50-100 km 2) that were naturally disturbed by different fire events (1 year, 20 years, 100 years and> 200 years) and two logged landscapes (20 years, 80 years). Birds were surveyed by point counts. Overall, 348 point counts were distributed over the six forest landscapes. Vegetation plots centered at each point count were used to sample live trees and dead wood. In naturally
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".