MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019159931 · doi:10.7557/2.27.4.324

Assessing the length of the post-disturbance recovery period for woodland caribou habitat after fire and logging in west-central Manitoba

2007· article· en· W2019159931 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Juha M. Metsaranta

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaManitoba Hydro
KeywordsWoodland caribouHabitatTransectLoggingEcologyAbundance (ecology)Disturbance (geology)GeographySalvage loggingArboreal locomotionPopulationWoodlandEnvironmental scienceRange (aeronautics)ForestryBiologySnag

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the habitat characteristics of areas used by woodland caribou and areas disturbed by fire or logging in the Naosap caribou range in west-central Manitoba. The population inhabiting this area is currently considered to be of high conservation concern. The purpose was to determine how long after disturbance forests again resembled caribou habitat and whether there were differences in the recovery period between fire disturbed and logged areas. Sample transects were located in areas used by caribou and areas disturbed by fire or logging. Previously, it was shown that variables positively associated with habitat suitability in this region were species composition (presence of black spruce), an index of arboreal lichen abundance and tree size, while variables negatively associated with habitat suitability were deadfall abundance and species composition (presence of trembling aspen). It was hypothesized that if disturbed sites had become suitable caribou habitat, then they should be statistically indistinguishable from sites used by caribou based on these variables. Using cluster analysis, it was found that 2 statistical clusters showed the highest level of agreement with sampling clusters, with 88% of plots used by caribou classified into one cluster, and 74% of disturbed plots classified into the other. Although a small proportion (12%) of disturbed plots resembled used plots, 30 years (the age of the oldest disturbed plot) was not enough time, in general, for forest to return to conditions resembling caribou habitat in this region.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207