Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between habitat preferences and rates of dispersal and directional orientation across different vegetations was investigated using captures from an array of drift fences for Pseudacris triseriata , at a breeding pond near Boucherville, Quebec. Growth rates for juveniles were similar across the study area, suggesting that food was not limiting and movement is related to habitat preference. Frog residence time in habitat enclosures, and between fence arrays was significantly longer for frogs in humid prairie vegetation compared to those in shrubby vegetation. The number of frogs caught per metre of fence in humid prairies was also on average higher than either shrubby or arid prairie vegetations. Together both migration rates and captures per metre of fence suggest that the preferred habitat for P. triseriata is humid prairie vegetation (e.g. Phalaris grass). Target-oriented dispersal may explain why similar numbers of P. triseriata were captured in both shrubby and humid prairie vegetation, despite the perceived preference for humid prairies over shrubby vegetation. The continued persistence of this population appears to be based on the recruitment of juveniles from the larval stage, and is also sensitive to the fecundity of the first time breeders.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".