Harvest block spatial configuration as a function of logging road density: Do larger more aggregated blocks create less road?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Logging roads are a large component of forest management and have been directly linked to a variety of negative ecological effects, including forest fragmentation. Much research exists that views logging roads as barriers to organism movement, and, from this standpoint, assumes roads are an element of fragmentation. However, little is known about the long-term relationship between logging-road densities and harvest patch spatial configuration—a major consideration for future trends in forest fragmentation. Using spatial landscape data from managed forest landscapes in southeast British Columbia, I tested a prediction that long-term logging road densities are correlated with harvest patch spatial configuration, which implies that logging road networks influence future forest spatial patterns. My study found that while road densities in 44 study landscapes were highly correlated with the total amount of harvesting, road densities were not correlated with spatial patch indices. I suggest that these findings are the result of road planning that is intended to access all available resources in a management area and is, therefore, independent of short-term harvest patch configuration. Furthermore, these results suggest that efforts spent on planning aggregates of larger harvest patches to achieve a goal of lower road densities may be ineffective in some cases.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".