MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2325821926 · doi:10.5558/tfc2012-059

Evaluating the relationship between trapper harvest of American martens (<i>Martes americana</i>) and the quantity and spatial configuration of habitat in the boreal forests of Ontario, Canada

2012· article· en· W2325821926 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Lynn Landriault, Brian J. Naylor, Stephen C. Mills, James Α. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsMartenHabitatBorealTaigaEcologyGeographyEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the relationship between trapper harvest of martens (Martes americana) and the quantity and spatial configuration of marten habitat on traplines in the eastern and western boreal forests of Ontario. We used region-specific habitat models to estimate the total amount of suitable marten habitat on each trapline, and the proportion of each trapline identified as suitable habitat in various patch size classes. To control for variability in trapper success not associated with habitat, we included an index of trapper effort, as well as variables related to access, temperature, and precipitation as covariates in our regression analyses. Region-specific habitat models identified a positive relationship between the proportion of suitable marten habitat on traplines (irrespective of patch size) and trapper success. Although there did not appear to be an effect of patch size on trapper success in the eastern study region, we observed an effect in the western region. Results from the western study region suggest that traplines with suitable habitat in patches ≥500 ha will have higher trapper success than traplines with similar proportions of suitable habitat but distributed in smaller patches. Our study was conducted in a forested landscape (80% of trapline area was forested). Therefore, our findings should not be applied to areas where suitable marten habitat lies in a matrix comprised of a significant amount of non-forested area.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry Chronicle→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→