MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W17818563 · doi:10.1126/science.1.9.225

APPLICATION OF A MOOSE HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX MODEL TO VERMONT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT UNITS

2002· article· en· W17818563 on OpenAlex
Ky B. Koitzsch

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlces · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitatWildlifeDeciduousWildlife managementEcologyForest managementWildlife conservationGeographyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models translate existing knowledge of a species' habitat requirements into quantitative measures of habitat quality. The HSI is a numerical index that represents the ability of a given habitat to provide life requisites for a species on a scale from 0 (unsuitable habitat) to 1 (optimal habitat). Habitat Suitability Index models are useful in natural resource planning for predicting the impacts of resource management practices on wildlife habitat. Many moose (Alces alces) HSI models require the labor-intensive collection of ground-level browse density data, which limits their applications for analyzing large landscapes required by moose. Some, however, have been developed utilizing remotely sensed data to analyze large study areas. I tested the usefulness of one of these models, created for the Lake Superior region, to 2 Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) in Vermont. Areas of study WMUs, and I, were 680 km 2 and 729 km 2 , respectively. The model quantified 4 landscape-scale habitat variables representing annual cover types required by moose: percent area of regenerating forest, non-forested wetland, spruce/ fir forest, and deciduous/mixed forest. Model analyses were performed using a Geographic Information System (GIS). The model was useful in estimating relative habitat suitability of both WMUs, identifying within-WMU habitat variation, quantifying change in habitat suitability following a natural habitat-altering event, and predicting temporal change in moose habitat due to changes in forest management practices. The model revealed significant differences in habitat suitability of 0.64 for WMU E1 and 0.34 for WMU I. To determine within-WMU habitat variation, both WMUs were divided into 25-km 2 evaluation units, which approximated the annual home range of moose in New England, and a HSI was calculated for each unit. Habitat suitability of 81 km 2 of WMU I increased from 0.30 to 0.53 due to an increase in regenerating forest following heavy canopy damage from an ice storm in January 1998. A reduction in habitat suitability from 0.81 to 0.35 of Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge lands within WMU E1 was observed following a simulation in which all timber harvesting as a forest management practice was eliminated. Initial validation of this model for analyzing moose habitat at the WMU-scale is supported by correlation of HSI output to moose harvest data for WMU E1 25-km 2 evaluation units and by comparison of HSI to estimated moose densities for both WMUs. ALCES VOL. 38: 89-107 (2002)

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.203 · 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