MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144230750 · doi:10.7557/2.23.5.1709

Vegetation characteristics of forest stands used by woodland caribou and those disturbed by fire or logging in Manitoba

2003· article· en· W2144230750 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Juha M. Metsaranta, Frank F. Mallory, Dale W. Cross

Bibliographic record

VenueRangifer · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodland caribouHabitatLoggingEcologyWoodlandVegetation (pathology)Abundance (ecology)Environmental scienceArboreal locomotionGeographyForest managementRange (aeronautics)ForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in an area known as the Kississing-Naosap caribou range in west central Manitoba. The vegetation characteristics of areas used by caribou and areas disturbed by fire or logging were measured in order to develop a model to estimate habitat quality from parameters collected during stan¬dard resource inventories. There was evidence that habitat index values calculated using a visual score-sheet index could be used as the basis to relate parameters commonly collected during resource inventories to habitat suitability. Use of this model to select long and short-term leave areas during forest management planning could potentially mitigate some of the negative impacts of forest harvesting. Abundance of arboreal lichen and wind-fallen trees were important predictor variables in the suitability model, but their inclusion did not explain more variance in habitat suitability than models that did not include them. Extreme post-fire deadfall abundance may play a role in predator-prey dynamics by creating habitat that is equally unsuitable for all ungulates, and thus keeping both moose and caribou densities low.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations11
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRangiferSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207