An assessment of the relative importance of wildlife management areas to the conservation of grassland songbirds in south-western Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grassland bird populations have declined dramatically across North America in recent years.Loss and degradation of native habitat are the most likely causes of these population declines.In this study I evaluated the role of Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) for the conservation of grassland birds.I determined the habitat requirements of grassland birds at both local and landscape scale.At local level, I evaluated the effects of vegetation structure and management practices on grassland birds.At landscape level, I determined the effect of landscape characteristics and determine the scale at which organisms are associated.Data were collected on richness and abundance of grassland birds within 38 prairie sites in south-western Manitoba in 2008 and 2009.Bird species were categorized as obligate and facultative grassland birds to identiff habitat preferences within each group.Prairie sites in the study areas were not actively managed (idle) or under grazing and haying management.WMAs supported the lowest richness and abundance of obligate grassland birds.The lack of management within WMAs and the increase amount of woody vegetation within those areas was associated with this pattem.lltildlife Management Areas and grassland birds in south-western Manitoba S-M.Durán -Upper Assiniboine WMA.This WMA includes portions of the Assiniboine River valley and associated uplands (Manitoba Conservation200T).It is composed of twelve units.Only one unit was included within the current study, the Routledge unit, which has partially stabilized sand dunes with mixed-grass prairie and aspen-oak forest.Currently it contains some oil wells and is under haying 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".