Assessing the impacts of moose-induced habitat change on a forest bird community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest songbirds are sensitive to habitat disturbances that result in changes to \nforest structure and composition. In Newfoundland, Canada, browsing by hyperabundant, \nnon-native moose (Alces alces) has caused failed regeneration across extensive \nareas of forest following disturbance. I examined the impact of these habitat changes at \nmultiple spatial scales on forest bird occurrence and species richness within Gros Morne \nNational Park based on point counts that incorporated both silent intervals and intervals \nduring which black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus) mobbing calls were \nbroadcast. Early successional bird species we more likely to occur with increased failed \nregeneration on the landscape. Some forest habitat generalists were less likely to occur \nwith increased failed regeneration cover at the local scale. Comparing detection \nprobabilities across silent and playback intervals for 17 species, I found that playbacks \nincreased detection rates for seven species, and either had no effect or decreased \ndetection rates for the remaining ten species.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".