MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011308002 · doi:10.1139/z08-118

Habitat selection by black bears in an intensively logged boreal forest

2008· article· en· W2011308002 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Vincent Brodeur, Jean‐Pierre Ouellet, Réhaume Courtois, Daniel Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)Université du Québec à Rimouski
FundersForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsUrsusHabitatEcologyWoodland caribouTaigaBlack spruceLoggingBiologyBorealPopulationWoodlandRange (aeronautics)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensive logging of the boreal forest rejuvenates landscapes once dominated by old-growth stands. As black bear ( Ursus americanus Pallas, 1780) fitness and behavior are known to be primarily related to the abundance of shade-intolerant soft mast species in northern forests, we hypothesized that logging will influence habitat and space use patterns of black bears. We used VHF telemetry on 12 female black bears in the Réserve faunique des Laurentides (Quebec, Canada) to investigate seasonal patterns of habitat selection in an exploited heterogeneous boreal landscape at different spatial scales. Habitat characterization based on seven forest cover types allowed us to compare the productivity of key forage species in various post-logging age classes. Regenerating stands (6–20 years old) had the uppermost ground vegetation cover, providing both the highest density and a high biomass of berries. Black bears preferred regenerating stands (6–20 years old) and avoided mature coniferous forests inside their home range. Home-range size was inversely related to the proportion of regenerating stands (6–20 years old). Intensive logging influenced black bear habitat and space use patterns, and presumably their population dynamics. An increase in the habitat quality of an opportunistic predator poses great concern for conservation, especially for forest-dwelling woodland caribou ( Rangifer tarandus caribou (Gmelin, 1788)).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations126
Published2008
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207