MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1591542958 · doi:10.22230/jem.2005v6n1a307

Coast Forest Region Roosevelt Elk Wildlife Habitat Decision Aid

2005· article· en· W1591542958 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Henigman, Jennifer Turner, Kathie Swift

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecosystems and Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsKelowna General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildlifeHabitatSilvicultureLoggingGeographyForest managementEnvironmental resource managementRegeneration (biology)AgroforestryRange (aeronautics)EcologyForestryEnvironmental scienceBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To conserve and maintain suitable elk winter range, forest companies are required to manage their road building, timber cutting, and other forestry activities. Regeneration and free-growing obligations must also be met when harvesting these areas. Harvesting and silvicultural strategies have significant effects on the incidence of Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) in an area and the damage elk inflict when browsing on regenerating trees. This Wildlife Habitat Decision Aid (WHDA) summarizes the information that forest managers, including silviculture planners and operational foresters, need to consider when managing for Roosevelt elk seasonal habitat requirements and conifer regeneration. This information was obtained through an extensive literature analysis and discussions with several foresters and researchers familiar with Roosevelt elk in the (Vancouver) Coast Forest Region.The WHDA format has been used to extend information on the factors requiring consideration when managing forests in British Columbia. The first page of this WHDA provides information on habitat and important features of Roosevelt elk winter range, biogeoclimatic zones where elk are located, risks to consider when harvesting in Roosevelt elk range, and silvicultural risks and considerations. A map depicts the distribution of elk in the Coast Forest Region. The second page continues the discussion of silvicultural risks and considerations, and presents potential growth and yield implications associated with Roosevelt elk browse. Also included is a valuable resource and reference list that contains more detailed information. Most reference material that is not available on-line can be ordered through libraries or the Queen's Printer at: www.qp.gov.bc.ca.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.011

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ecosystems and ManagementSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207