MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patterns and Determinants of Historical Woodland Clearing in Central‐Western New South Wales, Australia

2007· article· en· W2058699429 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Bedward, Christopher C. Simpson, Murray Ellis, LISA M. METCALFE

Bibliographic record

VenueGeographical Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClearingWoodlandGeographyClearanceVegetation (pathology)EcologyPhysical geographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We consider the history of woodland clearing in central western New South Wales, Australia, which has led to the present highly cleared and fragmented landscape. A combined approach is used examining available historical land‐use data and using regression analysis to relate the pattern of cleared and wooded areas in the recent landscape to environmental variables, taking into account the contagious nature of clearing. We also ask whether it would be possible to apply a simple simulation modelling approach to reconstruct a credible historical sequence of clearing in the study area. The historical data indicate that annual clearing rates have varied substantially in the study area and selective tree removal (ringbarking and thinning) has been common. These findings make it unlikely that a simple simulation approach would replicate the spatial and temporal sequence of woodland loss. Our regression results show that clearing patterns can be related to environmental variables, particularly annual rainfall and estimated pre‐European vegetation type, but that patterns are dominated by contagion.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeographical ResearchSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207