Ground beetle responses to patch retention harvesting in high elevation forests of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of a forest harvesting system whereby small (typically 0.1–2.0 ha) patches of standing timber are retained inside of harvests, was compared to conventional clearcutting for its effect on ground beetle assemblages. Two seasons of pitfall trapping entailed 46 451 trap days, and yielded 15 799 individuals of 28 species; abundance was dominated by four species comprising 92.4% of the catch. Most species were known to have wide geographic distributions in Canada and Alaska but many species seemed to respond to disturbance on a site‐specific basis. Contrary to findings of similar studies, no species could be characterized as “mature‐forest specialists”, or “forest generalists”. Forest patches and edge habitats immediately inside the forest canopy contained assemblages more closely related to mature forest than to cleared areas. Harvested areas with patches yielded catches distinct from typical clearcuts, based primarily on changes in abundance of one common species. Climatic regimes and landscape disturbance levels were the two important factors distinguishing our study from others, and we have suggested that these may influence the degree to which patches are an effective conservation tool.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".