Habitat suitability index models for the wood frog (Rana sylvatica) and boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata maculata) in the foothills parkland natural sub-region and Bow River sub-basin, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habitat suitability index (HSI) models were developed for the wood frog (Rana sylvatica) and for the boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata maculata) in the Foothills Parkland Natural Sub-region and Bow River Sub-basin in west-central Alberta. The models are based on key habitat variables that had significant relationships with the . . population estimates detennined from night calling surveys. The models were first derived from literature that was related to ·wood frog and boreal chorus frog habitat and then tested in the field. Using chi-square analysis with a significance level of 0.01, fish presence, water movement, and dominant vegetation were discovered to be key habitat variables for both species. The key habitat variables for each species were integrated into HSI models. The HSI models can bt} used to determine the baseline and future quality of habitat for each species.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".