The roles of heterogeneity and scale in mallard nest site selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Waterfowl use of tall, relatively homogeneous upland nesting cover established as part of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan has often been lower than predicted by computer planning tools. Little information exists regarding the influence of patchiness or the spatial scales at which mallards (' Areas platyrhynchos') select nesting habitats. The present study addresses these ques ions at the level of the nest site, and provides new information to managers concerned with improving the productivity of nesting habitat for prairie waterfowl. Data were collected in conjunction with Prairie Habitat Joint Venture Assessment research, near Minnedosa, Manitoba in 1998. A random sample of 64 mallard nests were chosen from all nests located on a 65 km2 study area. Vegetation characteristics were measured within 4 x 4, 16 x 16, and 32 x 32 meter sample grids centered at each nest and at paired non-nest points. Observed habitat preferences suggest that management for nesting cover with an intermediate height and density, a high diversity and interspersion of grasses, forbs and shrubs, and fine scale structural heterogeneity may increase its attractiveness to nesting mallards. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".