MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170964942 · doi:10.1111/rec.12225

A call for applying trophic structure in ecological restoration

2015· article· en· W2170964942 on OpenAlexafffund
Lauchlan H. Fraser, William L. Harrower, Heath W. Garris, Scott Charles Davidson, Paul D. N. Hebert, Rick Howie, Anne Irene Moody, D. Polster, Oswald J. Schmitz, A. R. E. Sinclair, Brian M. Starzomski, Thomas P. Sullivan, Roy Turkington, D.W. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueRestoration Ecology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)Barrick Gold (Canada)Western Forest ProductsUniversity of VictoriaEagle Ridge HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of GuelphKamloops Art GalleryThompson Rivers University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRestoration ecologyVegetation (pathology)EcologyTrophic levelProductivityEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementEcosystemBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecological restoration projects have traditionally focused on vegetation as both a means (seeding, planting, and substrate amendments) and ends (success based upon primary productivity and vegetation diversity). This vegetation‐centric approach to ecological restoration stems from an historic emphasis on esthetics and cost but provides a limited measure of total ecosystem functioning and overlooks alternative ways to achieve current and future restoration targets. We advocate a shift to planning beyond the plant community and toward the physical and biological components necessary to initiate autogenic recovery, then guiding this process through the timely introduction of top predators and environmental modifications such as soil amendments and physical structures for animal nesting and refugia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.036
Scholarly communication0.0090.013
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations109
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRestoration EcologySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207