Can a small park preserve its flora? A historical study of Bic National Park, Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reconstructed the 100 year history of the botanical composition of a small (19 km2) park (Bic National Park, Bic/St. Fabien, Quebec) located within an agricultural landscape. Using 64 historical sources and a botanical field survey, we documented changes in the native and exotic vascular flora that occurred before and after the creation of the park in 1984. We evaluated how many native species were lost from 1984 to 2005, and the number of exotic species that became established during the same period. A total of 585 plant taxa were found in Bic National Park before its creation, of which 488 (83%) were native. The park harbours more taxa today (710) than in the past, but the proportion of exotic taxa has increased significantly (from 16% to 25%) since 1984. Despite its small area, Bic National Park has very successfully preserved its flora during its 21 year history. Thirteen species have likely been extirpated from the area occupied by the park. However, 12 of these 13 species have not been seen since at least 1957, so they were probably extirpated before the creation of the park. On the other hand, the creation of the park did not stop the introduction of exotic species. Land-use changes, an increase in the number of visitors, and horticultural plantings are probably the main causes explaining the rise in the number of exotic taxa observed during the last 21 years. A small park located far from urban centres may preserve its flora, but is not necessarily a bastion against exotic species.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".