Habitat Selection, Nest Box Usage, and Reproductive Success of Secondary Cavity Nesting Birds in a Semirural Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As urban areas continue to grow and erode rural landscapes, it is critical to characterize essential habitats for all wildlife in order to set aside protected areas in an attempt to maintain diversity. We constructed and monitored 30 nest boxes for usage by secondary cavity-nesting birds each year from 2014-2016 at the John Nichols Scout Ranch located in southeast Canadian County, Oklahoma. At each of six sites, five nest boxes were situated along a transect at 15m intervals with a central box located at an abrupt edge between a wooded habitat and a grassland habitat. We measured 77 habitat variables around each nest box at 2 sampling scales, 1m2 and 10m2. We used these habitat variables and sites in which nesting occurred in a principal components analysis. Eastern Bluebirds and Carolina Chickadees nested in grassland habitats with little to no overhead canopy cover. Carolina Wrens nested in woodland areas with high amounts of litter ground cover and overhead canopy cover. Results at both spatial scales were similar. We used the simplified Morisita index to calculate niche overlap at both spatial scales. Overlap varied substantially depending on sampling scale.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".