A turtle population study in an isolated urban wetland complex in Ontario reveals a few surprises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on the results of the first mark–recapture survey of freshwater turtles in an isolated urban wetland complex in one of Canada’s fastest growing municipalities. Although we found turtles in every surveyed wetland, the density and assemblage of turtles in smaller wetlands were significantly different than in larger wetland bodies. We also documented two species of turtles that were thought to be absent from this wetland complex, the Northern Map turtle and Eastern Musk turtle. We noted that a wetland that was bisected by a high-traffic road showed a male-skewed sex ratio in the population of Midland Painted turtles but not in the population of Eastern Snapping turtles. As a whole, the sex ratios inside the wetland complex were not skewed. These results reinforce the conclusions of a previous study of a single wetland within this same complex that had found a correlation between road mortality and a male-skewed sex ratio in Midland painted turtles. We discuss population sources and sinks within the complex and the importance of protecting the overland corridors that support the safe turtle movements within this provincially significant wetland complex.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".