MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408377938 · doi:10.1656/045.031.s1239

Reassessment of Three Spotted Turtle (Clemmys guttata) Populations Reveals Spatial Variation in Population Size and Survival

2025· article· en· W4408377938 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisabeth L. Willey, Michael T. Jones, H. Patrick Roberts, Joan Milam

Bibliographic record

VenueNortheastern Naturalist · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurtle (robot)Variation (astronomy)ZoologyPopulationBiologyPopulation sizeGeographyEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clemmys guttata (Spotted Turtle) is a widespread species of regional conservation concern throughout the eastern United States and Canada, relying upon mosaics of upland and wetland habitats. Spotted Turtles exhibit late maturity and low annual reproductive potential; as a result, many populations are vulnerable to decline and reduced connectivity due to elevated rates of anthropogenic disturbance and mortality. We assessed 3 Spotted Turtle populations that were initially studied between 1989 and 1995 on patchworks of private and public (watershed and state forest) land using mark–recapture methods and a combination of open- and closed-population models. During the initial studies, the 3 populations were estimated to support 98, 18, and 43 turtles, respectively. Our population models for the same sites during 2018 or 2019 provided estimates of 92.3, 25.8, and 36.6 turtles, respectively, suggesting limited evidence of growth or decline over more than 25 years at all 3 sites, though fluctuations were observed. We attribute the lack of significant change in population size at these sites to their landscape context: all 3 are situated within areas >600 ha with no public road access, allowing turtles to shift habitat in response to vegetation succession, hydrological shifts, or other changes and buffering them against roadkill or other anthropogenic threats. We also documented variation in population parameters across both space and time; for example, annual survival estimates varied from 0.924 to 0.986 at the sites, emphasizing the need for locally specific information and long-term studies to inform conservation decisions at both the site and species level.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNortheastern NaturalistSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207