Effets de trois scénarios de régénération de la sapinière boréale sur les passereaux nicheurs, les petits mammifères et le lièvre d'Amérique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared wildlife utilization of recent clearcuts subjected to three regeneration scenarios commonly used in boreal balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) forests: natural regeneration, plantation of black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) followed by herbicide release (glyphosate), and plantation of black spruce followed by manual release (brushsaw). The wildlife species studied were songbirds, small mammals and the snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus Erxleben). Surveys were conducted during the 2 years preceding and the 5 years following conifer release. The abundance of songbirds decreased the second and third years after both types of release, and the abundance of the red-backed vole (Clethrionomys gapperi Vigors) was reduced for 2 years following herbicide release. Snowshoe hares rarely used the stands during the 8 to 10 years that followed logging, so conifer release did not affect them. In this study, the short- and mid-term effects of the regeneration scenarios on wildlife may have been mitigated by the poor quality of clearcuts as wildlife habitats at the time of release and by the fact that plantations, like naturally regenerated sites, had a heterogeneous vegetation and a well-developed herb and shrub cover. In the humid balsam fir forest, where vegetation growth is slow and snow cover deep, the size and distribution of clearcuts would have greater effects on wildlife in the short and mid term than the regeneration scenario used for forest renewal. A landscape management approach inspired by natural disturbance dynamics is proposed as a mitigation measure.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".