MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185933138 · doi:10.48044/jauf.2010.033

Assessing the Degradation Effects of Local Residents on Urban Forests in Ontario, Canada

2010· article· en· W2185933138 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Wendy McWilliam, Paul F.J. Eagles, Mark Seasons, Robert D. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueArboriculture & Urban Forestry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of WaterlooBrown University
KeywordsGeographyYardBoundary (topology)Environmental protectionEnvironmental degradationUrban ecosystemAgroforestryEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningEcologyEnvironmental scienceUrban planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban forests provide essential social, ecological, and economic functions in support of their communities; however, surveys indicate adjacent residents conduct activities within their yards and the adjacent public forest edge that degrade these systems. Local governments rely on boundary-focused passive management and/or active management to limit impacts. Encroachment results from various boundary treatments; however, it is not known whether encroachment represents a substantial source of degradation within Ontario, Canada, municipal forests. To evaluate this, percentage cover of encroachment impacts adjacent to 186 homes within 40 forests of six Southern Ontario municipalities was surveyed. The results indicated degradation resulting from encroachment was substantial. Encroachment occurred in highly valued and sensitive ecosystems, and during sensitive time periods. This was highly prevalent and covered a substantial proportion of the forest edge. Some encroachment behaviors were particularly harmful, resulting in the loss of significant forest area to residential land uses. Furthermore, encroachments remained over long periods. The small sizes and convoluted shapes of urban forests leave them vulnerable to these impacts. Prevailing municipal strategies are insufficient to protect these systems from encroachment. To ensure their long term protection, municipalities and their communities need to substantially increase their commitment and resources for addressing encroachment.

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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArboriculture & Urban ForestrySame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207