Roost sites of chimney swift (<i>Chaetura pelagica</i>) form large‐scale spatial networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several biodiversity‐centered metrics exist to quantify the importance of landscape and habitat features for conservation efforts. However, for species whose habitat use is not quantified by these metrics, such as those in urban areas, we need a method to best identify features for targeted conservation efforts. We investigated the use of social network analysis (SNA) to identify and quantify these critical habitat features. We used SNA to identify network existence in chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica) roost usage, quantify the importance of each roost site, and evaluate the impact of the loss of key sites. We identified a network consisting of ten chimney swift roosts in southern Nova Scotia, Canada, and found that 76% of swifts used more than one roost throughout the breeding season. We also isolated three key (most connected) roost sites. We evaluated the effect of loss of these key sites on the network by using a Wilcoxon‐Pratt signed‐rank test and by analyzing the structure of the subsequent network. We found that connections between roosts and the structure of the network were significantly affected by the loss of these key sites. Our results show that SNA is a valuable tool that can identify key sites for targeted conservation efforts for species that may not be included in conservation efforts focused purely on biodiversity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".