Influence of design on the microclimate in nest boxes exposed to direct sunshine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nest boxes have been widely used across the world to provide shelter for animal species, often to restore areas following the loss of natural tree hollows. While the microclimates of installed nest boxes have been studied, limited attention has been paid to whether microclimate is influenced by nest box size, shape and entrance dimensions. In this study the temperature and humidity patterns were recorded within six nest box designs that were exposed to direct sunshine. All were constructed of 19 mm plywood but varied in length by a factor of 2X, in volume by 3.5X and in entrance areas by 5X. All next boxes behaved the same thermally, closely following ambient during the night, but during the day they heated to 5 °C warmer than ambient by mid-afternoon. Fluctuations in humidity varied, with small nest boxes with large entrances being closer to ambient humidity than those with small entrances or large volumes. Overall, nest box size and shape had no detectable influence on the internal temperature fluctuations, but did to a slight extent on humidity patterns. Construction material and nest box placement are the likely drivers of the temperature and humidity patterns within nest boxes, and need to be the focus of efforts to keep nest boxes habitable when deployed, and designs should be selected on the basis of the target animal's preferences for size and shape.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".