HABITAT USE BY THE BICKNELL'S THRUSH IN THE ESTRIE REGION, QUEBEC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".