Local and regional scale habitat selection by wood turtles (Glyptemys Insculpta) in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the distribution of Wood Turtle populations at the regional scale and habitat selection by individuals at the local scale. The studies at both scales were guided by 'a priori' knowledge of the importance of thermoregulation, nesting, hibernation and foraging to Wood Turtles. At the regional scale, data were collected from eight stream reaches inhabited by Wood Turtles and 52 non-inhabited reaches. Models were fitted to the data using logistic regression and evaluated for fit, significance of parameter estimates, and predictive success. Results indicated that Wood Turtles are "stream specialists", occurring along stream reaches with available nesting sites, hibernacula, and diverse riparian habitats. At the local-scale, 260 radio-telemetry locations were obtained from 20 Wood Turtles, pre- and post-nesting; habitat characteristics were measured at these locations, and at 260 random locations, each associated with a turtle location. Models were fitted to the data using conditional logistic regression and evaluated for fit, significance of parameter estimates, and predictive success. Results indicated that Wood Turtles are "habitat specialists" pre- and post-nesting, selecting terrestrial habitats close to the water, with cover types favourable for thermoregulation, and characterised by fine substrates.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".