Ecological integrity in Stanley Park : future monitoring practices to assess long term ecological integrity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In December 2006, a major windstorm event hit Stanley Park, causing significant damage to the ecology of the park. In an effort to restore the ecological integrity of the park, the Vancouver Park Board sought advice from the Stanley Park Ecology Society (SPES), only to find that no data had previously been collected regarding the park's ecology. This realization prompted SPES to formulate a long-term monitoring program that would be used to create a regularly updated State of the Park Report for the Ecological Integrity of Stanley Park (SOPEI). Long-term monitoring was conducted in both 2007 and 2009 at six sites throughout the park. These six sites consisted of three sites that had been affected by the windstorm and three sites that had not, in order to assess the differences in the sites and to determine how to effectively restore the park to its original state. In 2010, SOPEI was written, giving Stanley Park board members a thorough understanding of the current ecological state of the park. However, due to a lack of resources no further long-term monitoring was conducted, leaving no available data to create a new SOPEI report. This project focuses on creating a long-term monitoring plan that is simple and easy to use, while still maintaining the scientific integrity that is necessary to assess the ecological health of the park. The long-term monitoring plan includes a sampling database as well as a survey manual that explains how to properly sample and where the sites are located. This plan will be used for years to come, to ensure that thorough data is collected and analyzed consistently to allow for trends among data to be found. This data will provide SPES with information regarding sites that are at the most ecological risk and provide park board members an idea of where future developments should and shouldn’t go, based on their ecological significance to the park.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".