MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121399825 · doi:10.2193/2005-479

Effects of Progressive Clearcut Logging on Newfoundland Caribou

2007· article· en· W2121399825 on OpenAlexafffundabout
James A. Schaefer, Shane P. Mahoney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Newfoundland and LabradorTrent University
FundersDepartment of Environment and Science, Queensland GovernmentNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLoggingClearcuttingBogRange (aeronautics)EcologySilvicultureHabitatEnvironmental sciencePopulationGeographySoftwoodForest managementForestryPhysical geographyBiologyPeatDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Logging has often been implicated in the decline of caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ), but its effects are incompletely understood. We used a distance‐based approach to assess the effects of progressive clearcut logging on the summer (28 May to 15 Sep) range of caribou in Newfoundland, Canada. We compared distances of random locations and of caribou, from 9 years of radiotelemetry, to landcover types across 3 spatial scales: population range, individual ranges, and radiolocations. We tested for incremental avoidance of cutovers and mature softwood forests, the preferred type for caribou and forest harvesting, while controlling for the confounding effects of each. At the individual range, females selected for hardwood and softwood forests, bogs, and barrens, and they avoided open water. Patterns for males were similar, although they avoided bogs and barrens at both scales. The sexes differed in their response to forest harvesting. Females progressively avoided cutovers, both pre‐ and postharvest, likely due to their spatial proximity. Females maintained an average of 9.2 km from active cutovers. Cutover avoidance was evident even if we controlled statistically for distances to other habitats, and it accounted for heightened disuse of softwood forests. Compared with females, males occurred in proximity, with no incremental response to clearcutting. These results imply deleterious effects of timber harvesting on female caribou. Long‐term investigations will enhance our capacity to evaluate such anthropogenic habitat changes.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.226 · 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.

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

Citations57
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207