Ecology and management of Bobolinks in hayfields of Quebec and Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) nest success, nest-site selection, and nestling growth and survival with the goal of establishing conservation and management plans for hayfields of Québec and Ontario. Bobolink nest survival increased with age of the nest and was higher in managed hayfields than at less-managed sites in close proximity to wetlands. Female bobolinks selected nests with higher forb composition and higher overhead concealment. If haying in the region is optimally delayed until 15 July and minimally until 1 July, this allows time for Bobolink young to fledge, as well as harvesting of hay late to use as animal fodder. For late-cut fields, increased forb composition provides high-quality nesting habitat. For early-cut fields, which ultimately lead to nest and nestling destruction, nesting may be deterred by a lack of forbs. Basic Bobolink nest ecology and nestling growth is described to serve as a baseline for further research on this understudied species.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".