MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560729521 · doi:10.3996/052015-jfwm-049

Habitat Suitability Modeling of the Federally Endangered Poweshiek Skipperling in Michigan

2016· article· en· W2560729521 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clint D. Pogue, Michael J. Monfils, David L. Cuthrell, Benjamin W. Heumann, Anna Monfils

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish and Wildlife Management · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitatEndangered speciesWildlifeGeographyRange (aeronautics)Critical habitatEcologyWildlife conservationLand coverButterflyWildlife managementEnvironmental scienceLand useBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Poweshiek skipperling Oarisma poweshiek (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) is a historically common prairie butterfly with a range extending throughout the mesic prairies and prairie fens of the upper Midwestern United States and southern Manitoba, Canada. Rapid, range-wide declines have reduced the number of verified Poweshiek skipperling locations to seven, four of which occur in Michigan. To assist with monitoring and, ultimately, conservation efforts, we developed a habitat model using the software Maxent with ecological and geographical factors. Using a lowest-presence threshold methodology, our habitat suitability model indicated potentially high suitability in 26 of 138 prairie fens with no documentation of Poweshiek skipperling occurrence. The strongest predictors of suitable habitat in our model were prairie fen area and surrounding natural land cover. Wildlife managers can use results from this analysis to expand monitoring to include sites with suitable habitat where Poweshiek skipperling are not currently documented, in addition to identifying potential introduction sites.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish and Wildlife ManagementSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207