MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967799096 · doi:10.1139/z02-213

Clearcut logging restricts the movements of terrestrial Pacific giant salamanders (<i>Dicamptodon tenebrosus</i> Good)

2002· article· en· W1967799096 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Barbara Johnston, Leonardo Frid

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRiparian zoneLoggingRiparian bufferSalamanderCaudataClearcuttingEcologyHabitatBiologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pacific giant salamanders (Dicamptodon tenebrosus Good) in the Chilliwack River valley of southwestern British Columbia are at the periphery of their range, and therefore of conservation concern. Although logging is a potential threat to the species, no studies have examined how clear-cutting affects its terrestrial stage. We used radio telemetry to compare the movements of 35 terrestrial Pacific giant salamanders at sites with three different logging histories: forested, clearcut to the stream margin, and clearcut with riparian buffer strips. The results demonstrate that logging affected movements of the salamanders. Salamanders in clearcuts remained significantly closer to the stream, spent more time in subterranean refuges, and had smaller home ranges than those at forested sites. During a dry year, salamanders in clearcuts were significantly more dependent on precipitation for their movement than salamanders in forested habitats. Salamander movement behavior in riparian buffer strips was not significantly different from that at forested sites but was significantly different from that at clearcut sites. Riparian buffer strips appear to mitigate some of the negative effects of clearcuts on salamander movement.

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)0.000
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations67
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207