FACTORS AFFECTING DISTRIBUTION AND DETECTION OF BOREAL CHORUS FROGS (Pseudacris maculata) AND WOOD FROGS (Rana sylvatica) AT CAPE CHURCHILL, MANITOBA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amphibian populations are declining globally (Jennings and Hayes 1985, Beebee et al. 1990, Blaustein and Wake 1990). Disease, introduced predators, ultraviolet radiation, pollution, environmental change, and habitat loss and degradation have been suggested factors responsible for amphibian population declines (Jennings and Hayes 1985, Beebee et al. 1990, Laurance et al. 1996, Pounds et al. 2006). However, the relative importance of each potential factor is often unknown in specific cases. Because the processes that underlie amphibian declines are not well understood, collaborative efforts, such as the North American Amphibian Monitoring Program (NAAMP), have been developed to collect basic ecological data, and to systematically monitor amphibian population trends. Despite efforts such as the NAAMP, there are still many areas where amphibian surveys have not been conducted and little is known about local populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".