MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7000627864

Fire and Avian Ecology in North America - Process

2005· article· en· W7000627864 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Technologies and Applied Computing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Work (physics)EctothermFire ecology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We summarize the findings from 10 subsequent chapters that collectively review fire and avian ecology across 40 North American ecosystems.We highlight patterns and future research topics that recur among the chapters.Vegetation types with long fire-return intervals, such as boreal forests of Canada, forests at high elevations, and those in the humid Pacific Northwest, have experienced the least change in fire regimes.The spatial scale of fires has generally decreased in eastern and central North America, while it has largely increased in the western United States.Principal causes of altered fire regimes include fire suppression, cessation of ignitions by American Indians, livestock grazing, invasion by exotic plants, and climate change.Each chapter compiles the responses of birds to fi re in a specifi c region.We condensed these responses (203 species) into a summary table that reveals some interesting patterns, although it does not distinguish among fire regimes or time since fire.Aerial, ground, and bark insectivores clearly favored recently burned habitats, whereas foliage gleaners preferred unburned habitats.Species with closed nests (i.e., cavity nesters) responded more favorably to newly burned habitats than species with open-cup nests, and those nesting in the ground and canopy layers generally favored burned habitats compared to shrub nesters.Future directions for research suggested by authors of individual chapters fell into two broad groups, which we characterized as habitat-centered questions (e.g., How does mechanical thinning affect habitat?) and bird-centered questions (e.g., How does fire affect nest survival?).

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.169 · 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