Response of Bicknell’s Thrush (<i>Catharus bicknelli</i>) to boreal silviculture and forest stand edges: a radio-tracking study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Society and regulatory regimes require that biodiversity conservation, and especially the protection of threatened species, be integrated into land-use planning and management. Bicknell’s Thrush ( Catharus bicknelli (Ridgway, 1882)) is an at-risk species breeding in montane balsam fir ( Abies balsamea (L.) P. Mill.) dominated areas of northeastern North America. We monitored 34 individual Bicknell’s Thrushes by radio telemetry in southern Quebec to examine the size, location, and habitat composition of their home ranges in areas where clear-cutting and precommercial thinning occurred. Home ranges of Bicknell’s Thrush comprised more dense balsam fir stands and fewer thinned stands than available. Within home ranges, thrushes were found more frequently in unthinned balsam fir stands than in thinned stands, and they did not avoid edges. In fact, they were found disproportionately near edges of recently thinned stands. We conclude that Bicknell’s Thrushes may coexist with forest management practices that maintain a landscape mosaic dominated by dense balsam fir patches interspersed with thinned 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".