A study of the hole-nesting avifauna of south-western British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study relates the species composition, numbers, and habits of a hole-nesting avifauna to its environment in successional stages of a coniferous forest in southwestern British Columbia. Emphasis is placed upon explaining an observed presence or absence of nest-site competition. In two breeding seasons, the hole-nesting avifauna was found to be low in numbers of both species and individuals. Most of these birds were able to excavate their own nesting cavities, and commonly did so, for which activity the habitat generally provided ample opportunity. As the species present often differed widely from one another in the type and placement of their preferred nest cavities, there was usually a surplus of different cavity types present. Secondary hole-nesters either concentrated their activities around the buildings in the nearby town, neglecting the more "natural" sites available; were not obligated to use cavities when nesting; or occurred in such low densities, and were so positioned in the available suitable habitat, as to suggest that nest-site competition had no effect upon the populations. Only scattered indications of nest-site competition were observed in wooded areas. Four species nested in crevices in buildings and in bird boxes in a small town, where their breeding population densities were much higher than in the surrounding countryside. Nest-sites were judged to be present in excess, and nest-site competition, observed infrequently, was so rare, and apparently without significant harmful effects, that it was judged to be of negligible importance as a population-regulating factor. The overall absence of nest-site competition is contributed to not only by the preferences of the species regarding their nest-sites, but also by the fact that the results of their habitat selection processes, and their living habits within these habitats, tend to keep them ecologically distinct.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".