MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185732033 · doi:10.22230/jem.2005v6n1a309

Bald eagle nest site and nest tree characteristics in select biogeoclimatic zones of the 100 Mile House Forest District, British Columbia

2005· article· en· W2185732033 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roger Packham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecosystems and Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Environment
KeywordsPinus contortaNest (protein structural motif)ForestryPicea engelmanniiBald eagleEcologyGeographyHabitatBlack spruceEagleBiologyTaiga

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest site and nest tree characteristics were studied in the Sub-Boreal Spruce (SBS), Interior Cedar–Hemlock (ICH), Sub-Boreal Pine–Spruce (SBPS), and interior Douglas-fir (IDF) biogeoclimatic zones in the 100 Mile House Forest District, British Columbia. Dominant or codominant Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) containing large trunk forks or multiple forks of the trunk comprised 85% of 121 bald eagle nest trees. Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) comprised 11% of known nest trees, and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and hybrid white spruce (Picea glauca x engelmannii) each contained 1% of known bald eagle nests. Tree height and diameter at breast height (DBH), nest height, and distance of nest to fish-bearing water were less for island nests compared to non-island nests. The mean distance of nests to fish-bearing water, by biogeoclimatic zone, was 78 m in the SBS, 104 m in the ICH, 241 m in the SBPS, and 368 m in the IDF. Ground slope and aspect were not factors in nest site location. The bald eagle nest trees studied were generally of low economic value to the forest industry as they contained less recoverable lumber than similar-sized trees with better form. To maintain bald eagle nesting habitat, large diameter, dominant or codominant trees containing large trunk forks, or multiple forks or leaders of the trunk and (or) large limbs should be identified and retained in groups, patches, or forest stands.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ecosystems and ManagementSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207