Landscape ecology of an amphibian community in southern Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis investigated the factors governing pond-breeding amphibian life stage occurrences at multiple sites within a 467-hectare forest at Mont-Saint-Grégoire, Québec, during 2006 and 2007. Several environmental, landscape characteristics and predator occurrences were tested using different statistical analyses to predict occurrence of these life stages. Life stages responded to different conditions and were not predicted by the same factors. Recruitment can be successful only if conditions are suitable for all life stages. Recruitment was poorly predicted by the detection of breeding adults, while it was better predicted by that of eggs and tadpoles. Different species also responded differently to environmental and biotic conditions, and what was required by amphibia as a taxon was not accurate for predicting population dynamics of individual species. We attempted to study dispersal patterns of three species, but the breeding season of 2007 was brief due to exceptional weather conditions and, thus, no pattern could be detected. These findings illustrate the complexity of pond-breeding amphibian population dynamics and the need for further long-term, multivariate and multi-species studies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".