MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082569286 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2019-0369

Constraints on range expansion of introduced red squirrels (<i>Tamiasciurus hudsonicus</i>) in an island ecosystem

2020· article· en· W3082569286 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jenna P. B. McDermott, Darroch M. Whitaker, Ian G. Warkentin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologyHabitatRange (aeronautics)SubspeciesVegetation (pathology)GeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Factors that limit the range expansion of introduced species can offer insights into the basic ecology of these species and inform conservation of associated endemic species. North American red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus (Erxleben, 1777)) were recently introduced to the island of Newfoundland, Canada, where they have been implicated in the decline of two endemic bird subspecies. During the summers of 2016 (following conifer masting) and 2017 (following nonmasting), we conducted surveys with 1960 point counts and playback to assess red squirrel distribution and habitat use across a 257 km2 montane landscape in western Newfoundland. We used generalized additive models with stepwise model selection to assess the relationship between land cover and red squirrel occurrence each summer. Red squirrels were most common at low elevations and were not detected at elevations above ∼500 m. Their occurrence was negatively associated with the presence of water, coniferous scrub, and 10- to 30-year-old fir–spruce but positively associated with the presence of 30- to 70-year-old fir–spruce and >70-year-old fir. Red squirrel presence was related to more land cover variables in 2016, after a masting year. The absence of red squirrels from forests at higher elevations apparently resulted from lack of suitable habitat rather than incomplete range expansion. Climate- or silviculture-induced changes in vegetation may alter mid- and upper-elevation habitat suitability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207