MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W291128828

A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ON THE INFLUENCE OF HABITAT COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE ON MOOSE DENSITY IN CLEAR- CUTS OF NORTH-WESTERN QUÉBEC

2002· article· en· W291128828 on OpenAlex
Robert Courtois, A. Beaumont

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlces · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitatDeciduousEcologyPredationHabitat fragmentationGeographyLimitingFragmentation (computing)Biology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aerial survey data were used to describe moose density changes in relation to habitat composition and structure in clear-cut areas, and to infer the impact of these variables on limiting factors. We hypothesized that moose density would be lower in cut areas due to increased hunting and predation. Four habitat types (food and cover stands, cover stands, cuts, and other habitats) and 7 fragmentation indices were used in our analyses. Aerial surveys conducted in seven 35-112- km 2 blocks showed that moose density was related to the proportion of deciduous and mixed (food and cover) stands within each block and edge between food and cover and resinous stands (cover). Density, productivity, and harvest rate were not significantly influenced by clear-cuts. Our results suggest that habitat models should consider food and food-cover border over other habitat components.

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 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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.201 · 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