MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

HABITAT USE BY THE BICKNELL'S THRUSH IN THE ESTRIE REGION, QUEBEC

2002· article· en· W2180624580 on OpenAlexaffabout
Véronique Connolly, Gilles Seutin, Jean‐Pierre L. Savard, Ghislain Rompré

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wilson Bulletin · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbies balsameaHabitatBalsamVegetation (pathology)EcologyGeographyThrushWoodpeckerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concern has been raised that the viability of Bicknell's Thrush (Catharus bicknelli) populations is precarious due, in part, to threats to its breeding habitat. Qualitative descriptions of habitat use have suggested that the species breeds primarily in dense, high elevation forests of northeastern North America. However, there is little quantitative information on habitat use patterns, which impedes formulation of effective conservation plans. To address this knowledge gap, we characterized the habitat of 42 sites occupied by Bicknell's Thrushes and 19 unoccupied sites on two mountains in the Estrie region, Quebec. Occupied sites were dominated by balsam fir (Abies balsamea) growing at high density, whereas unoccupied sites had a larger component of hardwoods at lower density. We found significant differences in vegetation composition and habitat structure between occupied and unoccupied sites for each mountain separately, and the two combined, though the particular variables distinguishing the two site types varied between the two mountains likely because of differences in management history. Our results show that the structure of occupied habitats may differ among sites even within a single region. However, it was evident that dense balsam fir-dominated habitats were used selectively by Bicknell's Thrushes at both study sites, and that the maintenance of such habitats should be a conservation priority in the Estrie region.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.169 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wilson BulletinSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207