"Where There Was Fire, Sounds Remain: Changes in Bird Activity Patterns in the Sub-Arctic Boreal Forest of Churchill, Manitoba, Canada."
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este estudio evalúa las diferencias entre un bosque conservado y uno quemado, empleando el Índice de Diversidad Acústica (ADI) y el Índice de Bioacústica (BIO) como herramientas principales. Ambos índices se calcularon mediante grabaciones acústicas tomadas a intervalos regulares durante 35 días para identificar diferencias entre los sitios. Mediante modelos de efectos mixtos generalizados (GLMM), se analizaron los efectos del disturbio, la temperatura y la hora del día sobre los índices calculados. Los valores de ADI y BIO fueron consistentemente mayores en el bosque conservado y resultaron estadísticamente significativos. Se evidenciaron diferencia en la riqueza de especies y cinco especies indicadoras presentaron diferencias en su actividad vocal entre los dos bosques. Estos hallazgos resaltan la complejidad de las respuestas bioacústicas al disturbio y subrayan la utilidad de los índices acústicos y bioacústicos para evaluar patrones ecológicos, incluso en escenarios donde las diferencias no son marcadas. Este enfoque proporciona información clave para la gestión y conservación de hábitats boreales en el contexto de cambio climático y las perturbaciones antropogénicas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".