MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7021254848

Northern Goshawk Ecology in the Western Great Lakes Region

2006· article· en· W7021254848 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and biodiversity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAquatic animalPopulationHabitatPredationWaterfowlTaxonBiodiversity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A substantial amount of research has been conducted on Northern Goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) in recent years, but the majority of this research has been conducted in western North America and Europe.Little information has been published concerning goshawks in the western Great Lakes region, including the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and the forested southern portion of the Canadian province of Ontario.We present an overview of the regional information available on Northern Goshawks in the western Great Lakes region which draws heavily on our recent studies in Minnesota, but also includes published and unpublished information from across the western Great Lakes region.Inclusion of this information on productivity, breeding-season food habits, breeding-season habitat use, residency status and migration patterns, and breeding season mortality provides a broader understanding of the ecology of goshawks in this region.Our recommendations for additional research needed to enhance management of western Great Lakes region goshawks include development of a collaborative sampling program to identify goshawk nest sites and monitor survival, mortality, and productivity at subsamples of nests across the region; identification of winter habitat and prey use; and monitoring of goshawks in silvicultural treatment areas to assess responses to forest management.

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 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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.149 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida)Same topicEcology and biodiversity studiesFrench-language works237,207