Multi-scale selection models predict breeding habitat for two Arctic-breeding raptor species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Raptors are important environmental indicators because they are apex predators and can be sensitive to disturbance. Few studies have addressed habitat preferences of tundra-nesting raptors, and those that exist have focused on fine-scale characteristics. With increasing economic development predicted to occur throughout the Canadian Arctic, the investigation of raptor breeding habitat at broad spatial scales is required. We modeled breeding habitat selection for two raptor species on north Baffin Island, NU, Canada. During aerial surveys conducted over six breeding seasons, we documented 172 peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius) and 160 rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus) nesting sites. We used these locations in conjunction with remote sensing data to build habitat selection models at three spatial scales. Topography, distance to water, and normalized difference vegetation index explained selection at all scales; slope aspect was also important at the finest scale. To validate landscape scale models, we conducted a validation survey that resulted in the detection of 45 new nests (peregrine falcon n = 21, rough-legged hawk n = 24). We did not detect any new nests in areas where model-predicted occurrence was expected to be low. Conversely, we found more than half of previously undetected nests in areas where model-predicted occurrence was expected to be high.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".