Effects of Disturbance and Landscape Position on Vegetation Structure and Productivity in Ontario Boreal Forests: Implications for Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Forage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypotheses explaining recent declines in the abundance of woodland caribou in boreal Ontario include increased disturbances and predation. Caribou may select peatlands to avoid predation. Peatlands are regarded as low productivity, nutrient-limited systems, caribou may face a trade-off between predation risk and nutrient intake through foraging. I quantified differences in plant community and plant foliar quality in boreal stands across drainage class, disturbance type and time-following-disturbance. I found that understory productivity was influenced more by drainage and time-following-disturbance than by disturbance type. I also quantified variation among stand characteristics and plant functional types using measures of plant foliar quality. Foliar quality varied mostly by plant functional type. Overall, this thesis does not support the hypothesis that caribou face a trade-off between forage quality and predation risk by selecting peatlands, as peatlands had greater levels of understory productivity and foliar quality relative to uplands.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".