MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2004439971 · doi:10.1139/x06-252

Bridging native and scientific observations of snowshoe hare habitat restoration after clearcutting to set wildlife habitat management guidelines on Waswanipi Cree land

2007· article· en· W2004439971 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Hugo Jacqmain, Louis Bélanger, Susanne Hilton, Luc Bouthillier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsCentre de Géomatique du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyWildlifeHabitatSnowshoe hareWildlife managementWildlife conservationForestryEcologyClearcuttingForest managementVegetation (pathology)Wildlife corridorAdaptive managementHabitat destructionAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale timber harvesting in the northern black spruce forest, on Quebec Cree territory, causes immediate loss of productive wildlife habitat for Cree hunters. Duration of this impact is key information to improve forest management. The objective here was to examine the postharvesting habitat restoration delay for snowshoe hare, a species valuable to Cree hunters, as well as a wildlife indicator of the sapling stage. A minimum threshold for vegetation development was established, at which the return of hare populations is considered acceptable by Cree hunters. To do so, an adaptive approach was used, combining Cree hunter knowledge and biological assessment. Hare populations were monitored in 36 cut blocks, ranging from 0 to 30 years after harvest. Cree hunters were interviewed to determine when a cut block becomes adequate for snaring. The combined analysis of the two knowledge sources indicated that stands that meet the threshold average 4 m in height, 6300 trees/ha in density, and are aged between 13 and 27 years. Current regulation sets this threshold at 3 m in height, regardless of cut block scale, and at 20 years postcut when considering family hunting ground scale, and thus, does not fully meet sustainable resource development objectives.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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