Characteristics of foraging sites and the use of structural elements by the pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) on southeastern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In four 1450-ha landscapes of differently aged coastal western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) forests on Vancouver Island (British Columbia, Canada), sites and elements used by pileated woodpeckers for foraging were examined. Snags and defective trees (decayed or damaged) used for foraging (n = 94) were larger, more decayed, and had less bark remaining than those not used; also, more were in the upper and main canopy strata (n = 587). Pileated woodpeckers foraged on sites (n = 23) where there was greater basal area of snags and defective trees, more coarse woody debris, and more western red cedar (Thuja plicata) than sites that were not used (n = 36). Logs used for foraging (n = 27) were larger, longer and less decayed than unused logs (n = 360). The reduction of remnants of old forests and their structures could have negative consequences for pileated woodpecker, particularly where heavy rainfall or deep snow limit prey availability. Foraging habitat must be provided in managed forests.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".