Putting Knowledge to Work: The Fisher Habitat Extension Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ishers (Martes pennanti) are carnivores of the weasel family that rely on many features of late-successional forests to survive and reproduce.Fishers are considered a species at risk in British Columbia under the Identified Wildlife Management Strategy of the Forest and Range Practices Act 2004 and is also considered a "species of special concern" (blue-listed) by BC's Conservation Data Centre.Under BC's Forest and Range Practices Act 2004, forest licensees are required to maintain key habitat features for fishers within their tenures.Many late-successional forests in BC are targeted for timber harvest and other forestry activities, which can have negative impacts on the ability of the forest landscape to support fishers.Recognizing that fishers use habitat resources at spatial scales ranging from elements (e.g., tree cavities, rust brooms) to landscapes, a number of options are available to forest practitioners to make forestry decisions that help conserve fisher habitat at each of these scales.Recent research on fishers has identified many opportunities for forest licensees to incorporate decisions that may positively affect the conservation and supply of habitat for fishers during all phases of forest management (planning, harvesting, regeneration/post-harvest treatments). Objectives of the Fisher Habitat Extension InitiativeFor the last four years, the British Columbia Fisher Habitat Working Group has been implementing an extension program called the Fisher Habitat Extension Initiative to support forest management decision-makers with relevant information and tools.The long-term goal of this initiative is to ensure that sufficient habitat is conserved, recruited, and enhanced at different spatial scales -element, patch, stand, and landscape -to sustain populations of fishers distributed throughout their historical range in BC.
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 | 0.028 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.008 |
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".