{"id":"W2158774225","doi":"10.1111/1365-2664.12289","title":"REVIEW: Can retention forestry help conserve biodiversity? A meta‐analysis","year":2014,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Applied Ecology","topic":"Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies","field":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","cited_by":442,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"Université du Québec en Outaouais; Université du Québec à Montréal; University of Alberta; Vancouver Island University","funders":"Vetenskapsrådet; Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas","keywords":"Biodiversity; Forestry; Biodiversity conservation; Meta-analysis; Agroforestry; Environmental science; Business; Environmental resource management; Geography; Ecology; Biology; Medicine","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0006944184,0.0001184917,0.0007395169,0.00004917592,0.0002660415,0.00001101157,0.0002659392,0.0001402146,0.0008756593],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00005526202,0.0000458838,0.0006821823,0.000378263,0.0001466798,0.00004721323,0.000102522,0.0001759697,0.00005901627],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.00002656156,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.000008793136,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.00004731587,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.002322686,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9991025,0.00009882796,0.0003085595,0.0001618597,0.00011568,0.0002125223],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9989928,0.0002597718,0.0004671264,0.00004527559,0.0001510351,0.00008396214],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0007083307,0.0006766979,0.5554962,0.0002882398,0.1477974,0.00009949537,0.0002270112,0.0001329005,0.002766961,0.002211826,0.28596,0.003634943],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005495923,0.001424888,0.8156025,0.00001316438,0.1122683,0.00005437124,0.0005076427,0.00001221363,0.000275546,0.002602027,0.06634612,0.000343605],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9800231,0.00210831,0.00000420994,0.01649002,0.000174572,0.0001693285,0.00004659146,0.00001696143,0.0009668834],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9915658,0.002006213,0.0001312941,0.006121198,0.00008628392,0.000003371008,0.00002815501,2.65283e-7,0.00005742617],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.2601064,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9587855,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.03365640136169146,"score_gpt":0.2143163567216188,"score_spread":0.1806599553599273,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}