MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210711251 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2021-0115

Habitat occupancy by Spruce Grouse (<i>Canachites canadensis</i>) in the south of its range in Quebec, Canada

2021· article· en· W3210711251 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Clara Casabona i Amat, Pierre Blanchette, André Desrochers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistère des Forêts, de la Faune et des ParcsUniversité Laval
KeywordsOccupancyGrouseDeciduousHabitatRange (aeronautics)EcologyGeographyForestryTemperate deciduous forestBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studying habitat occupancy at the margins of the distributions of species can be helpful in clarifying the requirements of species and planning management measures. Spruce Grouse (Canachites canadensis (Linnaeus, 1758)), a bird species associated with northern short-needle coniferous forests in North America, has its southeastern range limit where coniferous forests are mixed with temperate deciduous forests and agricultural lands. Some isolated populations are found in these habitats. Using a single-season occupancy modelling approach, we investigated habitat use by Spruce Grouse, accounting for imperfect detection, in the lowlands of the St. Lawrence River in southern Quebec, Canada. We conducted call-response surveys of Spruce Grouse over three years at 279 sites (59 sites in 2007, 100 sites in 2008, and 120 sites in 2009). At the site level, the probability of occupancy was 21% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 10.7%–37.9%) and probability of detection was 54% (95% CI = 34.7%–73.0%). Based on the covariates in the models, occurrence increased with higher cover of coniferous trees and low deciduous shrubs, and decreased with higher cover of deciduous trees. Finally, detection probability was highest at the beginning of the survey (50% in late April) and was influenced by year.

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)0.000
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207