Domains of scale in cumulative effects of energy sector development on boreal birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Industrial development in Canada's boreal forest creates cumulative environmental effects on biodiversity. Some effects may be scale-dependent, creating uncertainty in understanding and hindering effective management. Objectives: We estimated cumulative effects of energy sector development on distributions of sixteen migratory songbird species at multiple spatial scales within the boreal region of Alberta, Canada, and evaluated evidence for scale domains in species responses. Methods: We used a hierarchical, multi-scale sampling and modelling framework to compare effects of oil and gas footprint on songbirds at five spatial scales. We used Bayesian Lasso to facilitate direct comparison of parameter estimates across scales, and tested for differences in grouped parameter estimates among species. Results: We found consistent scale-dependent patterns across species, showing variable responses to development occurring at the smallest scale, little effect at intermediate scales, and stronger, mainly positive effects at the largest scales. Differences in grouped parameter estimates across scales showed strong evidence for scale domains in the response of songbirds to energy sector development. Conclusions: We concluded that variable effects at the smallest scale represented individual habitat selection, while larger scale positive effects reflected expanding distributions of open habitat- and disturbance-associated species in areas of high oil and gas footprint. Our results show that single-scale analyses do not reflect population processes occurring at other scales. Future research on linking patterns at different scales is required to fully understand cumulative effects of land use change on wildlife populations. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10980-023-01779-8.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".