MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W250547146

Does Habitat Matter in an Urbanized Landscape? The Birds of the Garry Oak ( Quercus garryana ) Ecosystem of Southeastern Vancouver Island, British Columbia

2005· article· en· W250547146 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Evan Feldman, Pam G. Krannitz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyHabitatEcologyUrbanizationGeneralist and specialist speciesFagaceaeHabitat fragmentationForestryBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Garry oak (Quercus garryana) ecosystem was once a dominant habitat type on southeastern Vancouver Island, British Columbia, but urbanization has lead to massive habitat loss and fragmentation (Hebda 1993). Most bird species are expected to respond negatively to urbanization because of increased patch isolation, increased predation pressure, and negative edge effects (Marzluff and Ewing 2001). On southeastern Vancouver Island, Garry oak remnants form a mosaic along with coastal Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests. Since the two ecosystems differ in habitat structure and composition, there is an a priori expectation that their bird communities differ. However, urbanization may have fragmented the landscape to the extent that only generalist species use both habitat types. This study tests whether bird abundance in patches of Garry oak and Douglas-fir is related to habitat type or patch size and/or urbanization in the landscape. It also compares bird community composition of Garry oak patches surrounded by urbanization to those patches surrounded by Douglas-fir forest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies→French-language works237,207→