Evaluation of carabid beetles as indicators of forest change in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Our objective was to assess the potential of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as effective bioindicators of the effects of forest management at a Canadian national scale. We present a comparison of carabid beetle assemblages reported from large-scale studies across Canada. Based on the initial response following disturbance treatment, we found that carabid assemblages consistently responded to disturbance, but responses of individual species and changes in species composition were nested within the context of regional geography and finer scale differences among forest ecosystems. We also explored the relationship between rare and dominant taxa and species characteristics as they relate to dispersal capacity and use of within-stand habitat features such as coarse woody debris. We found no relationship between life-history characteristics (such as body size, wing morphology, or reported associations with downed wood) and the relative abundance or frequency of occurrence of species. Our results suggest that carabids are better suited to finer scale evaluations of the effects of forest management than to regional or national monitoring programs. We also discuss several knowledge gaps that currently limit the full potential of using carabids as bioindicators.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".