MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Large‐Scale Conversion of Forest to Agriculture in the Boreal Plains of Saskatchewan

2002· article· en· W1964961196 on OpenAlexaffabout
Keith A. Hobson, Erin M. Bayne, Steven L. Van Wilgenburg

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeforestation (computer science)GeographyLand coverPhysical geographyBorealBiodiversityLand useForestryTaigaThematic MapperAgricultureAgricultural landAgroforestryEcologyEnvironmental scienceSatellite imagery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Despite widespread recognition of the importance of forest loss and fragmentation on biodiversity, the extent and rate of forest loss even in temperate regions remains poorly understood. We documented forest loss and assessed whether road density, rural developments, land quality for agriculture, and land ownership influenced the distribution and rate of change in forest cover for the entire boreal transition zone (49,846 km 2 ) of Saskatchewan, Canada. We used landscape data taken from the Canadian Land Inventory database in forest cover (1996) and Landsat thematic mapper data (1994) to study changes between 1966 and 1994. Forest covered 17,873 km 2 of the study area in 1966 and 13,504 km 2 in 1994. This represents an overall conversion of 73% of the boreal transition zone in Saskatchewan to agriculture since European settlement and an annual deforestation rate of 0.89% over the last 28 years, a rate approximately three times the world average. Mixed‐regressive, spatially autoregressive models explained a considerable portion of the variation in forest cover ( r 2 = 0.83) remaining on the landscape and suggested that less forest remained on lands that (1) were privately owned, (2) had soils with high suitability for agriculture, (3) had high road density, and (4) were in the southern portions of the study area. Strong spatial autocorrelation in the data indicated that areas of remaining forest tended to be spatially clustered. Our ability to predict where deforestation occurred between 1966 and 1994 was poor when we excluded the spatial autocorrelation terms from our model, but it was clear that deforestation was more likely to occur on privately owned lands than on those managed by the provincial government. Despite dramatic changes to forested areas in the boreal transition zone, and despite the importance of this area to a wide variety of forest‐dwelling wildlife, no programs are in place to slow or halt deforestation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations92
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207