BICKNELL'S THRUSHES (<i>CATHARUS BICKNELLI</i>) IN NEW BRUNSWICK CLEAR CUTS: THEIR HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS AND CO-OCCURRENCE WITH SWAINSON'S THRUSHES (<i>CATHARUS USTULATUS</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the use of regenerating clear cuts in the central highlands of New Brunswick by Bicknell's (Catharus bicknelli) and Swainson's (Catharus ustulatus) thrushes during the 1997 breeding season. Bicknell's Thrushes were found at 57 of the 90 points surveyed on six mountains. Swainson's Thrushes occupied 89 of 90 survey points. Bicknell's Thrushes had a lower probability of detection (P = 0.40) than Swainson's Thrushes (P = 0.76). Fixed-radius point counts yielded breeding density estimates for birds on individual mountains ranging from about 3–22 pairs/100 ha (average 16 pairs/100 ha) for Bicknell's Thrushes, and from about 39–69 pairs/100 ha (average 51 pairs/100 ha) for Swainson's Thrushes. White birch (Betula papyrifera), balsam fir (Abies balsamea), and pin cherry (Prunus pensylvanica) were the dominant tree species on regenerating sites. Points occupied by Bicknell's Thrushes tended to be at higher elevations than unoccupied points and to have a greater proportion of white birch stems, a greater number of stems in the 5–10 cm diameter class and a lower diversity of trees and shrubs. No attempt was made to characterize Swainson's Thrush habitat since this species was present at virtually all survey points. We believe that relatively young (average height about 4 m) mixed stands of regeneration with moderate to high stem densities provide important habitat for Bicknell's Thrushes in New Brunswick. Suggestions are made about the direction of future research needed to formulate habitat management and conservation plans for this species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".