Dispersion of the western winter wren (Troglodytes troglodytes pacificus [Baird]) in coastal western hemlock forest at the University of British Columbia Research Forest in south-western British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I studied the dispersion of winter wrens in 100-year-old, second-growth, coastal western hemlock forest at the University of British Columbia Research Forest in southwestern British Columbia from 1978-81. Male winter wrens were territorial on non-overlapping territories at an average density of 60 per km2. An average of 8% were polygamous. Females occupied generally non-overlapping home ranges at least during the breeding period, but were not shown territorial, although this possibility could not be excluded. Winter wrens were not uniformly distributed but showed differential use of various individual ecosystems (as mapped by Klinka 1976) and ecosystems grouped by forest floor habitats. Surplus, potentially territorial males were available during the breeding period which could have occupied the empty or sparsely occupied areas. Invertebrate food was more abundant in habitats used by winter wrens as compared to avoided habitats, and, food is proposed as a factor in habitat selection by winter wrens. I propose that winter wrens are spaced by territoriality and clumped by suitable habitat, and suggest that these two factors influence the patterns of dispersion of winter wrens in coastal western hemlock forest, and perhaps elsewhere as well. Klinka's ecosystems and grouped ecosystems were proposed as indicative of the distribution of winter wrens, and perhaps of other wildlife species generally. If so, ecosystems can arid should be used as the base for the study and management of wildlife in the province of British Columbia, and perhaps elsewhere as well.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".