Has the Eastern Red-backed Salamander (<i>Plethodon cinereus</i>) Declined in Ontario?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amphibians are known to be declining around the world. Although often only reported for frogs, declines among salamanders are also known to be occurring. In Ontario, for example, citizen science monitoring indicates the Eastern Red-backed Salamander (Plethodon cinereus) has not been found in the last 20 years in many areas where it was historically known to occur. To test whether this decline is real or the result of lack of recent observations, we conducted targeted surveys in 25 grid squares with no recent records of the species and confirmed the presence of the Eastern Red-backed Salamander in 84% of these squares. It made up 90% (183 of 202) of all six species of salamanders encountered and was also the first salamander species detected in 90% of the squares. The median number of cover objects needed to detect a species was 34 (range 1–145) for Eastern Red-backed Salamanders, 129.5 (range 34–204) for Blue-spotted Salamanders (Ambystoma laterale), and 154 (range 6–187) for Spotted Salamanders (Ambystoma maculatum), and these detection rates differed significantly (H = 9.46, P < 0.01). Our study suggests that Eastern Red-backed Salamanders have not declined. We caution researchers using citizen science data that a lack of sightings of a “cryptic species” does not mean a species has declined.
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 | 0.000 | 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".