MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072893711 · doi:10.1139/x01-116

Short-term use of different residual forest structures by three sciurid species in a clear-cut boreal landscape

2001· article· en· W2072893711 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Mathieu Côté, Jean Ferron

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaigaEcologyBlack spruceLoggingBiologyForestryClearcuttingAbundance (ecology)Riparian forestRiparian zoneGeographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared the abundance of red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Erxleben), northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus Shaw), and eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus L.) in three types of black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) residual forest 3 to 5 years after logging (upland strips, riparian strips, and forest blocks) in central Quebec, Canada. Controls consisted of mature forest undisturbed by forestry practices. Despite their sporadic occurrence, northern flying squirrels and eastern chipmunks were captured in the three residual forest types as well as in control sites. Red squirrels inhabited all types of residual forest and no differences in densities were found between residual forest treatments and controls. Juvenile recruitment, return rate (survival), and body mass were also similar for red squirrels in all treatments. However, midden abundance was higher in controls and blocks than in strips. In the short term, red squirrel populations maintain themselves in all types of residual black spruce forests after logging. The northern flying squirrel and the eastern chipmunk appear to tolerate the presence of logging disturbances and are present at low density in the different types of residual forests.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations27
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207