Little known and little understood: Development of a small wetland assessment field card to identify potential breeding habitat for amphibians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of timber harvesting on small wetland habitats and associated amphibians has not been studied in the Pacific Northwest. In 2004, we initiated a study of three forested sites containing 70+ small wetlands in the Nanaimo Lakes area on Vancouver Island to investigate the use of these sites by amphibians before and after harvesting. Before harvesting, the majority of these wetlands were used for breeding by at least one of four aquatic-breeding amphibian species. Use continued after harvesting, with some species apparently drawn to breed in the newly harvested sites in response to reduced canopy cover conditions, which increase water temperature and productivity. Variable retention harvesting methods often use small wetlands as anchor points for retention patches, which protect the integrity of the in-pond environment and provide cover for metamorphs emerging in mid-summer; however, often only the largest wetlands receive retention. Our results indicate that habitat factors beyond wetland size are also important. Based on our research, we developed and tested a wetland field card that forestry personnel in south coastal areas can use to identify small wetlands used by breeding amphibians.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".