Clear-cutting and regeneration practices in Quebec boreal balsam fir forest: effects on snowshoe hare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared utilization by the snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus Erxleben) of recent clearcuts subjected to three regeneration scenarios commonly used in boreal forest: natural regeneration, plantation with herbicide release (glyphosate), and plantation with manual release (brushsaw). Refuges for snowshoe hare, on a landscape dominated by clearcuts, were also investigated. Colonization of regenerating sites by the hare comes late in the humid boreal forest because clear-cut stands take more than 10 years to reach the sapling stage. Our sites were in the seedling stage 79 years after cutting, and hares avoided them year round because of an inadequate protective cover. Therefore, regeneration treatments did not affect habitat use by the hare on a short-term basis. During the seedling stage, the snowshoe hare were found in the remaining forest which occupied at least 25% of the area of each home range. The preservation of residual forests is thus essential to maintain local populations on an area dominated by commercial 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".