A comparison of avian habitat in forest management plans produced under three different certification systems in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Considerable discussion and theoretical reviews of forest certification systems have been published that outline the potential impact of forest certification on biodiversity and wildlife habitat. Three common approaches to forest certification used in Canada include the Forest Stewardship Council, the Canadian Standards Association, and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. In this study, I reviewed forest management plans in Ontario, Canada, and compared the plans' potential impact on habitat for 6 species of birds that use mature and older forests: pileated woodpecker ( Dryocopus pileatus ), ruby‐crowned kinglet ( Regulus calendula ), boreal chickadee ( Poecile hudsonicus ), black‐backed woodpecker ( Picoides arcticus ), great gray owl ( Strix nebulosa ), and red‐breasted nuthatch ( Sitta canadensis ). The purpose was to determine whether the different certification systems in use resulted in different impacts on avian habitat, and to compare certified forest management plans with plans prepared for un‐certified forest units. Based on 27 Forest Management Plans in Ontario, there seems to be little reason to believe that certified forests are more likely to protect and conserve habitat for these 6 bird species that use older forests than are forests that are not certified. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".