MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1993183910 · doi:10.1139/x10-226

Effects of commercial thinning on site occupancy and habitat use by spruce grouse in boreal Quebec

2011· article· en· W1993183910 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ambroise Lycke, Louis Imbeau, Pierre Drapeau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderstoryHabitatThinningOccupancyTaigaVegetation (pathology)ClearcuttingWildlifeGrouseBlack spruceEcologyForestryBorealWildlife conservationSeasonal breederGeographyBiologyCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Partial cuts are increasingly proposed to maintain habitats for species negatively affected by clearcutting, even if their benefits on nonpasserine birds and large mammals are still poorly documented. Our main objective was to evaluate effects of commercial thinning (CT) on spruce grouse ( Falcipennis canadensis L.), a game bird of the boreal forest. Because this species is known to be associated with a dense vegetation cover, we hypothesized that habitat use would be lower in treated sites. In spring 2006, we evaluated site occupancy in 94 forest stands (50 CT and 44 uncut stands) in Quebec by visiting each on three occasions during the breeding season (March–May). Additionally, during the molting period (May–July), we used radiotelemetry to monitor habitat use by 19 males. As compared with uncut stands, results show that a lower proportion of CTs were used in spring (39% versus 60%, after accounting for detection). During the molting period, CTs were also used less than expected according to their availability. The significant reduction of lateral and vertical forest cover in CT may explain these results. We conclude that even if CT is perceived beneficial for wildlife, it does not completely fulfill the needs of species associated with dense understory vegetation, such as spruce grouse.

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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→