MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1587400500 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v121i4.505

Moose, <em>Alces alces</em>, Winter Browse Use in Central Labrador

2007· article· en· W1587400500 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Tina L. Newbury, Neal P. P. Simon, Tony E. Chubbs

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Newfoundland and Labrador
FundersHuman Resources and Skills Development CanadaDepartment of Natural Resources, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
KeywordsWillowTransectForestryGeographyForageBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine the effect of forestry practices on the availability of winter Moose forage, we recorded Moose browse along four 250 m transects in each of five forest regeneration ages. Browse use was greater on 20- and 30-year-old regenerating stands as compared with recently clearcut stands (5 and 10 years old) or mature forest (> 150 years old). Willow (Salix sp.) followed by White Birch (Betula papyrifera) had the highest proportion of browsing by Moose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207