Amphibian and reptile diversity along the St. Lawrence River
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Biodiversity Portrait of the St. Lawrence project was initiated to gain insight into the natural and anthropogenic factors that affect biodiversity and to have a better understanding of species distribution along the St. Lawrence River.This paper presents a regional analysis of the diversity of herpetofauna living along the Québec portion of the St. Lawrence River and identifies areas to be protected for the maintenance of amphibian and reptile populations in southern Québec.Data collected since the end of the 19" century were compiled in geographic units (natural provinces) and in a systematic grid of 100km?quadrats.The herpetofauna of the St. Lawrence River is composed of 33 species: 18 amphibians and 15 reptiles.The most commonly recorded amphibians were the American Toad (Bufo americanus), Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), Northern Leopard Frog (Rana pipiens) and Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica), and the most abundant reptiles were the Common Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) and Common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina).Species richness was greater in the southern portion of the St. Lawrence in the Montréal region where most records of species with high-priority conservation status in Québec were also concentrated, making this a high-priority region for conserving the biodiversity of Québec's herpetofauna.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".