MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7062741652

Using landowner knowledge and field captures to determine habitat use by the northern prairie skink (Plestiodon septentrionalis) on exurban residential land in southwestern Manitoba

2012· dissertation· en· W7062741652 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2012
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkinkLand tenureHabitatStewardship (theology)Land useLand cover
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exurban development, consisting of low density residential housing in a rural setting, is steadily increasing in North America. This increase may have negative impacts on the habitat for some species, through the introduction of non-native plants and new predators such as house cats. The northern prairie skink (Plestiodon septentrionalis) is listed as Endangered in Canada occurring only in southwestern Manitoba. The objectives of this study included: a) defining prairie skink microhabitat use on private land according to vegetation, temperature and cover availability, b) determining landowner awareness of prairie skinks on their property, and c) determining how landowner stewardship could be used in skink conservation. Mixed methods strategy of inquiry was utilized and data collection procedures included both quantitative habitat surveys and qualitative landowner interviews. I found that prairie skinks were most often found in prairie habitat, and were found most often in areas with a) high percent artificial cover, b) high leaf litter, and c) more pieces of cover per acre. Landowners most often saw skinks near buildings, in flower beds and in debris piles. Landowner attitudes towards skinks were positive,though willingness may not translate into action.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207