Effects of prescribed forest burning on carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae): a case study in south-eastern Norway
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of prescribed burning on ground beetles was studied in a single 12 ha stand that was partially clear-cut, selectively-cut and retained (= standing forest), and was compared to an unburned stand in 2002 in SE Norway. Thirty-two species were collected using Barber pitfall traps. Carabids were more numerous and more diverse in the burned area, compared to the unburned forest. Overall abundance was highest in the selectively-cut treatment, followed by the clear-cut and standing forest. Species diversity tended to increase in the sequence unburned forest – burned standing forest – burned selectively-cut – burned clearcut. Species composition differed little between the burned treatments. Pterostichus adstrictus, a species associated with open habitats and which frequently colonizes burned areas, was the most abundant species collected. It was most common in the burned area, particularly in the selectively-cut treatment. Our results suggest that burning of a single stand may support some carabid species, even endangered ones, although larger forest fires are probablymore effective for conservation purposes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it