Corrigendum: Modelled impact of Norway spruce logging residue extraction on biodiversity in Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following corrections are made to the article. p. 1220: The fifth sentence in the Abstract should read “Our results suggest that the extraction may cause a 35%–45% reduction in FWD and a more than 20% decline in the potential amount of substrate for about 50% of the species (affecting basidiomycetes and beetles more than lichens).”. The fifth sentence in the Resume should read “Nos resultats indiquent que la recuperation peut eliminer 35 % – 45 % des DLF et reduire de plus de 20 % la quantite potentielle de substrat pour environ 50 % des especes (ce qui affecte les basidiomycetes et les insectes plus que les lichens).”. p. 1221, Table 1: A correcting and clarifying note to the table 1 is added: “In scenarios 2–4; we assumed that logging residue extraction caused a 70% decrease in the volume of 0–5 cm and a 30% decrease in the volume of 5–10 cm of all fine woody debris (including what present before final harvest).”. p. 1225, right column, “Modelled effects of logging residue extraction on the amount of dead wood” section: The first sentence should read “Extraction of logging residues left after final felling (scenario 2) caused a 35% reduction in the average availability of FWD, a 24% reduction of the inflow of aboveground FWD, and a 14% reduction in the total inflow of FWD within a stand during a forest rotation compared with scenario 1 (Figs. 2 and 4).”. The third sentence should read “Removal of aboveground FWD also after all thinnings (scenario 3) caused a reduction by 45% in the average availability of FWD, a 32% reduction of the inflow of aboveground FWD, and a 19% reduction in the total inflow of FWD within a stand during a forest rotation compared with scenario 1 (Figs. 2 and 4).”. p. 1226, caption to Fig. 4: The first sentence of the caption should read “Simulated average amount of various types of dead wood at the landscape level or during a forest generation measured as (a) volume and (b) surface area at different levels of logging residue extraction in Kronoberg.”.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.027 |
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".