MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391475308 · doi:10.5962/p.353852

Birds and mammals of the St. Elias Mountain Parks: Checklist evidence for a biogeographic convergence zone

2003· article· en· W4391475308 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Ryan K. Danby

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsYukon Department of EnvironmentUniversity of Alberta
FundersWilfrid Laurier University
KeywordsChecklistGeographyConvergence (economics)EcologyBiologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Danby, Ryan K. 2003.Birds and mammals of the St. Elias Mountain parks: checklist evidence for a biogeographic convergence zone.Canadian Field-Naturalist 117(1): 1-18.The St. Elias region of North America occupies portions of British Columbia, Alaska, and Yukon and consists of a contiguous network of protected areas.Available information on avian and mammalian diversity in each of the region's five major protected areas (Kluane National Park, Wrangell-St.Elias National Park and Preserve, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Tatshenshini-Alsek Provincial Park, and Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge) was integrated to create a species checklist as part of an ongoing effort to create a region-wide ecological database for research and management purposes.Based on the tabulated data, the five protected areas combine to protect a total of 178 species of breeding birds and 51 species of terrestrial mammals.These numbers indicate a level of richness up to 30% beyond that predicted at a continental scale.A high proportion of species near their distributional limits and typical of several different biogeographic provinces appears to account for this value and supports consideration of the region as a biogeographic convergence zone.

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)0.001
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 score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207