Caging Four-Toed Salamander Nests Reduces Nest Predation in Northeastern Tennessee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Four-toed salamanders Hemidactylium scutatum have disjunct populations in the United States and Canada. Increased predation could threaten their populations and cause them to become limited in certain areas. Installing cages to protect threatened populations can reduce the chance of predation. To test the efficacy of cages, we examined the effects of caging four-toed salamander nests in northeastern Tennessee. We randomly selected 65/120 nests to cage from our study sites at the South Holston Weir Dam and Bouton Tract in Sullivan County, Tennessee. Based on photos from a camera trapping survey, we found that raccoons Procyon lotor were the main predators of uncaged four-toed salamander nests. Raccoon damage resulted in portions of moss being ripped away and the disappearance of eggs. Twenty-six percent of uncaged nests were preyed upon, whereas none of the caged nests were preyed upon. Our findings provide a strategy for improving nest success of four-toed salamanders and could be used to protect threatened populations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".