MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use by Bats of Patches of Residual Trees in Logged Areas of the Boreal Forest

2002· article· en· W2180587500 on OpenAlexafffundabout
LAUREEN K. HOGBERG, Krista J. Patriquin, Robert M. R. Barclay

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Midland Naturalist · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsHabitatForagingTaigaEcologyMyotis lucifugusBorealResidualClearcuttingDisturbance (geology)GeographyForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have shown that bat activity is greater along forest-clearcut edges than in the center of clearcuts or in the forest interior. Residual patches of trees in logged areas may also provide habitat for bats. To investigate this, we monitored bat activity at three locations within cutblocks: along the outside edge of the forest cutblock, in the center of the clearcut portion of the cutblock and along the outside edge of the residual patches of trees, at the EMEND (Ecosystem Management by Emulating Natural Disturbance) study site in northern Alberta, during the summer of 2000. Our results indicate that small maneuverable species such as Myotis lucifugus and M. septentrionalis were equally active along the edge of residual patches and the forest edge of cutblocks and least active in the center of cutblocks. Larger species, such as Lasionycteris noctivagans, showed no preference. Thus, patches of residual trees provide commuting habitat, and potentially foraging habitat, for bats.

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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations51
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Midland NaturalistSame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207