MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942322906 · doi:10.3390/f10050364

Avian Reporting Rates in Chugcheongnam Province, South Korea Depend on Distance from Forest Edge, Size of Trees, and Size of Forest Fragments

2019· article· en· W2942322906 on OpenAlexaff
Woongsoon Jang, Ara Seol, Ok-Sik Chung, Jung-Hee SaGong, Jong Koo Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersIncheon National University
KeywordsSpecies richnessAbundance (ecology)EcologyHabitatOld-growth forestGeographyNegative binomial distributionSpecies diversitySecondary forestAgroforestryBiologyPoisson distribution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forests provide bird communities with various resources, including food and habitats. Thus, forest attributes, such as size, structure, and species composition, influence the distribution and dynamics of bird species. This study was conducted to examine the association between forest condition, bird species abundance, and diversity within Chungcheongnam Province, South Korea. Zero-inflated binomial regression models were used to analyze a total of 1646 sampling points of abundance and diversity. Forest area, distance to forest edge, and tree size class were selected as covariates. Negative associations between forest area and overall bird abundance and species richness were indicated, whereas distance to forest edge was not a significant factor. This insignificance may be attributed to the relatively small, fragmented, and homogenous forest areas across the studied region. Results for individual bird species indicated that six out of the 35 major bird species had significant associations to the forest edge and three species showed a preference for the interior of the forest. The results of this study imply that other factors, such as food availability and biotic interaction, are more important when determining habitat preference in a relatively homogenous area with a long history of human disturbance.

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)0.001
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 score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207