MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149360970 · doi:10.22230/jem.2007v8n1a364

Forest bird response to partial cutting in lodgepole pine forests on caribou winter range in west-central British Columbia

2007· article· en· W2149360970 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. J. Waterhouse, Harold M. Armleder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecosystems and Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPinus contortaHabitatEcologyRange (aeronautics)SnagBiologyGeographyClearcuttingForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.003
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 score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ecosystems and ManagementSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207