MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4248735790 · doi:10.22215/etd/2021-14368

Density of Neotropical Bird Migrants is Highest at Stopover Sites with an Intermediate Amount of Forest in the Surrounding Landscape and a Low Proportion of Forest in Conifer

2021· dissertation· en· W4248735790 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thuong Tran Nguyen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeciduousGeographyForagingHabitatEcologyForest coverPopulationPopulation densityForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Some nearctic-neotropical migrant forest-breeding songbirds have suffered large population declines in recent decades. Declining availability of high-quality habitat where birds refuel during the long migration may be contributing to these declines. Our objective was to identify landscape attributes that make sites likely to be used as stopover sites during fall migration. We sampled birds at 37 sites in southeastern Ontario, Canada. Bird density was highest at sites with an intermediate amount of surrounding forest within 2 km, and where deciduous trees were in higher proportions in surrounding forests within 8 km. These results suggest that birds are attracted to landscapes with an intermediate amount of forest cover. Their densities may decrease at higher forest amounts due to dilution, conifer avoidance, or reduced edges for foraging. Our study highlights the importance of retaining sites with around 50% forest cover, particularly deciduous forest, as stopover habitat for migrating songbirds.

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 score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→