MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206901858 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v135i3.2419

Relative abundance and range extensions of bird species in central Labrador

2022· article· en· W4206901858 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marcel A. Gahbauer, Karen R. Rashleigh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)GeographyFlycatcherEcologyBorealWarblerVegetation (pathology)Abundance (ecology)Riparian zoneForestryBiologyArchaeologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bird communities in Labrador remain poorly described, including in the lower Churchill River valley, which lies within an offshoot of the boreal shield ecozone and features vegetation communities typically found more than 100 km to the south. Between 2006 and 2016, we conducted 1139 point counts in June and early July at 617 sites along 63 routes within and adjacent to the lower Churchill River valley. We documented 80 species during the surveys and a further nine species incidentally. The most numerous species were Swainson’s Thrush (Catharus ustulatus), Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Corthylio calendula), and Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis). Relative bird abundance was highest in hardwood and mixedwood forests and lowest in areas dominated by Black Spruce (Picea mariana). Among the species we observed were 19 that we considered to be regionally rare, based on existing documentation. The most abundant of these were Least Flycatcher (Empidonax minimus), Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), and Magnolia Warbler (Setophaga magnolia), each with more than 80 observations over multiple years, spanning 10 or more areas within the lower Churchill River valley. Almost all of the regionally rare species were strongly associated with either hardwood forests, large conifers, or dense riparian vegetation. These features are relatively widespread within the lower Churchill River valley, but scarce elsewhere in Labrador. It is unclear whether the results observed represent recent range expansions or our surveys were simply the first to document long-standing regional populations; regardless, we recommend that our records be considered in future revisions to range maps for these 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 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)0.000
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 score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist→Same topicRangeland and Wildlife Management→French-language works237,207→