MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2208098900 · doi:10.2980/i1195-6860-12-2-216.1

Functional and numerical responses of ovenbirds (<i>Seiurus aurocapilla</i>) to changing seismic exploration practices in Alberta’s boreal forest

2005· article· en· W2208098900 on OpenAlex
Erin M. Bayne, Stan Boutin, Boyan Tracz, Kerri Charest

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFragmentation (computing)GeologyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

:Rapid development of energy reserves in the boreal forest of western Canada has raised concerns about the potential impacts of forest fragmentation caused by seismic lines. Seismic lines are narrow linear corridors cut by the energy sector to access remote areas. Traditionally, seismic lines were cut using a bulldozer and averaged about 8 m in width. In response to concerns about conventional seismic line impacts, some energy companies have turned to new “best practices” that use lower-impact techniques to reduce their footprint (2- to 3-m-wide lines). Crucial to assessing the efficacy of this change in seismic policy for maintenance of biodiversity is determining how conventional and low-impact seismic lines are perceived by wildlife. We assessed the functional and numerical response of male ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapilla) to conventional and low-impact seismic lines in mature aspen forest in northeastern Alberta. Based on radio-telemetry, ovenbirds perceived conventional seismic lines as creating a gap in the forest and used it as a territory boundary. In contrast, ovenbirds incorporated low-impact seismic lines within their territories. Spot-mapping data suggested no differences in ovenbird density in stands with a single conventional seismic line, multiple low-impact lines, or reference plots with no seismic lines. Despite the lack of numerical response to any seismic practice, we believe it is prudent to recommend that energy companies consider using new low-impact approaches in their seismic operations to minimize the ecological risks of energy sector activity for forest birds.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.233 · 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