MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050684575 · doi:10.1139/x05-170

The effects of patch harvesting and site preparation on ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in yellow birch dominated forests of southeastern Quebec

2005· article· en· W2050684575 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jan Klimaszewski, David W. Langor, Timothy T. Work, Georges Pelletier, HE James Hammond, Carole Germain

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralist and specialist speciesSpecies richnessOrdinationEcologyHabitatGround beetleScarificationBiologyGeographyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the impacts of increasing size and number of gapcuts and the effects of site preparation by scarification on the species richness and community composition of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae), using pitfall traps in early-successional yellow birch dominated forests in eastern Canada. Catches of all carabids, forest specialists, and generalists were generally higher in uncut controls than in treatments. The catch of open-habitat specialists was generally lower in controls than in treatments. Although not significant, there was a common trend for scarification to decrease the catches of forest specialists and generalists. Bray–Curtis similarity measures and nonmetric multidimensional scaling ordination indicated that the composition of the carabid assemblage was more affected by harvesting treatment than by scarification. Carabid species composition varied consistently with increasing gap size and corresponded to the a priori generalized habitat-preference designations. Forest-specialist species were confined to uncut sites, while generalist species were widely distributed across all sites. Open-habitat species were found predominantly in clear-cut and two-gap sites. Hygrophilous species were consistently associated with two-gap, four-gap, and clear-cut sites. Small-gap harvesting is more favorable to the maintenance of the structure of natural arthropod assemblages than are traditional, larger clearcuts.

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)0.001
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations39
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207