Seeing isn’t always believing: visual observations underestimate space use in the eastern Grasshopper Sparrow ( Ammodramus savannarum pratensis )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating space use in organisms is important for understanding their basic ecology and for effective conservation and management. Typically, areas that are guarded or defended are referred to as territories, whereas home ranges encompass space use for all activities. We estimated territory and home range size for the eastern Grasshopper Sparrow, a subspecies of conservation concern, at two sites near the northern limit of the breeding range near Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The average territory size (1.05 ± 0.16 ha) was significantly smaller than the average home range size (2.69 ± 0.51 ha). Similarly, territories overlapped home ranges by an average of 55%, suggesting that visual observations alone may limit our understanding of space use in this species. Territories and home ranges averaged larger on a natural limestone alvar compared to a pasture study site. While space use averaged higher at the alvar site, birds at the pasture site compensated for smaller territories by overlapping more with neighboring conspecifics. Given high aggregation and overlap in space use in this study, we discuss our results in the context of improving survey count accuracy and conservation outcomes in this declining 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".