Monitoring avian productivity and survivorship in the oil sands region of Northeastern Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avian demographics provide an indication of habitat quality and complexity, due to the habitat requirements of the individual species among landbird taxa. The MAPS protocol (Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship) was applied in a 2011 pilot program in the boreal forest in the oil sands region to determine the applicability of the protocol in supporting evaluations of reclaimed habitats and to provide data supportive of population trend analyses. Six MAPS stations were established: three (BPND, MUSR, VWET) in natural undisturbed areas, two (GWAY, BISN) in reclaimed areas, and one (BCDS) in a semi-natural, reservoir shoreline area. The abundance of birds processed in 2011 was high (1,937 captures and 1,605 new bandings). Capture rate was highest at the natural habitat MUSR station (885 per 600 net-hr) and lowest at the reclaimed GWAY station (140). Capture rate at the reclaimed BISN station (730) was similar to that at the natural stations. Mean apparent productivity (across all species) in natural habitat stations was 0.91 (SE 0.24), that at BISN was higher (1.28), and that at GWAY was lower (0.24). Diversity of captured birds ranged from 19 (GWAY) to 37 (BISN) species; however, the number of species observed and exhibiting breeding behaviours at these two reclaimed stations were similar to those at the natural and semi-natural stations. Up to nine species and four breeding species at each station are listed as sensitive in Alberta or Canada. Improvements in reclamation practices at BISN relative to those applied at GWAY may explain some of the differences in bird abundance, productivity and diversity. The MAPS protocol can be effectively applied in the region, will provide data and information on the quality of reconstructed habitats in reclaimed areas, and will contribute data for use in estimating population vital rates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".