Assessing the length of the post-disturbance recovery period for woodland caribou habitat after fire and logging in west-central Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".