MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027628334 · doi:10.1029/01eo00202

Initiative to protect Canada's western boreal forest faces challenges from resource development

2001· article· en· W2027628334 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Randy Showstack

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaigaBorealGeographyWetlandWaterfowlMarshHabitatBiodiversityBogEcologyAgroforestryForestryPeatEnvironmental scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gary Stewart pointed on the map of Canada to a brown swath of western boreal forest that stretches from the border of Ontario and Manitoba, across four provinces and several territories, and up through Alaska. Canada's 2.0 million square kilometers of western boreal forest includes 20–30% of wetlands—bogs, fens, marshes, shallow lakes, and river deltas. The forest of spruce, aspen, poplar, and other trees historically has been heavily and naturally disturbed by fires. Until recently, though, this vast region was fairly undisturbed by human activity, according to Stewart, manager of conservation programs for the western boreal forest region for the non‐profit Ducks Unlimited Canada (DU). A 1986 North American Waterfowl Management Plan did not even include any perceived threats to Canada's western boreal forest, which DU says is the second‐most important waterfowl breeding area in North America, after the Prairie Pot‐holes region in Canada and the United States. The 13 million breeding ducks supported by the boreal forest are a primary reason for DU's interest, though the group's concern extend to habitat, wetlands, and other biodiversity

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207