Forest bird response to partial cutting in lodgepole pine forests on caribou winter range in west-central British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breeding birds were surveyed 1 year pre-harvest (1995) and 4 years post-harvest (1996–2001) to measure the response to partial cutting in old lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.) forests on the Chilcotin Plateau of British Columbia. The irregular group shelterwood and group selection systems recommended to manage northern caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou Gmelin) habitat did not negatively affect the breeding bird community. In some years within the post-harvest period, dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis L.), red crossbills (Loxia curvirostra L.), yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroica coronata L.), and gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis L.) showed significant (α = 0.05) increases in use of the partial-cutting treatments compared with the no-harvest treatment. No species decreased significantly in any of the partial-cutting treatments. The increased observations of mostly common species resulted in significantly (α = 0.05) higher species richness, and increased frequency of observations for the bird community in some years in the partial cuts. Partial cutting of caribou habitat will maintain bird communities typical of mature to older lodgepole pine 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".