MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922990788 · doi:10.1002/pan3.16

Indigenous peoples’ habitation history drives present‐day forest biodiversity in British Columbia's coastal temperate rainforest

2019· article· en· W2922990788 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Julia A. Fisher, Nancy Shackelford, Morgan D. Hocking, Andrew J. Trant, Brian M. Starzomski

Bibliographic record

VenuePeople and Nature · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooTula FoundationUniversity of Victoria
FundersHakai Institute
KeywordsRainforestGeographyPlant communityBiodiversityEcologyIndigenousResource (disambiguation)Temperate rainforestDisturbance (geology)AgroforestrySpecies richnessEnvironmental scienceEcosystemBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Long‐term human habitation has transformed the earth's surface. The combination of time and complex human–environment interactions in remote regions of North America has likely resulted in modified landscapes, though we often consider these regions free of human influence due to the absence of industrial development. We examined long‐term impacts of human resource‐use on British Columbia's coastal rainforest communities. We focused on the region's widespread habitation sites with extensive shell middens to test the legacy of ancient human occupation in present‐day plant communities. Ten habitation sites and 10 control sites in similar locales were selected for floristic surveys and soil sampling. We tested whether plant communities at habitation sites reflected a ‘cultural plant‐use legacy’, with greater presence of culturally significant plant species, and/or a ‘marine nutrient subsidy legacy’ from human use, with increases in species that prefer nutrient‐rich soils. We found that the habitation sites had different plant assemblages than the control sites and were dominated by plants with both higher nutrient requirements and cultural significance. We demonstrate that long‐term occupation has led to strong differences in plant community structure between sites, countering the notion that this is a pristine landscape. We emphasize the value of interdisciplinary approaches and considering past human resource‐use when examining current plant communities. A plain language summary is available for this article.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeople and NatureSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207