MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3190053261

Collecting baseline ecological data to inform future restoration at Minnekhada Farm within Minnekhada Regional Park, Coquitlam, BC ER

2021· article· en· W3190053261 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emily Gutenberg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyVegetation (pathology)HabitatPhalaris arundinaceaBaseline (sea)National parkWetlandFlooding (psychology)EcologyForestryArchaeologyFishery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Minnekhada Regional Park is an ecologically-diverse conservation area managed by Metro Vancouver in northeast Coquitlam, British Columbia. Minnekhada Regional Park boasts habitat features such as coastal forests, wetlands, rocky outcrops, and historical farmland. Approximately 22% (115 acres) of Minnekhada Regional Park is comprised by the historical Minnekhada Farm (the Farm), and area presently restricted to public access and managed by Metro Vancouver in a limited capacity. The Farm largely exhibits former grazing and equestrian fields and is stilloccupied by structures such as farmhouses, barns, and sheds. This ecological research project has sought to collect baseline ecological data from a 0.4 km2 portion of the Farm (the Site) in the hopes that this data will inform future restoration projects to enhance the ecological value of the Farm. This research was conducted with permission from Metro Vancouver under an authorized research permit. Over the course of six months and more than 35 fieldwork hours, data collection at the Site was completed with the assistance of 12 volunteers. Ecological Site data findings showed that the Site exhibits sixteen vegetation polygons vegetation is comprised largely of three species: reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) (64%), hardhack(Spiraea douglasii) (22%), and cutleaf blackberry (Rubus laciniatus) (13%). Soil test pits revealed mottling and a shallow clay layer (under dense reed canarygrass and cutleaf blackberry root systems) at depths ranging from 5 cm to 50 cm. The Site demonstrated varying water retention functions during periods of saturation following rainfall, resulting in flooding and drainage ditches exceeding capacity and overflowing. Existing on-site habitat features include fruit-bearing trees, dense shrubs and open space for wildlife as a corridor or resting area. No coarse woody debris (CWD) nor large boulders or rocks were identified present at the Site, which may contribute to low amphibian, reptile, and small mammal presence. Western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus), and green frog (Rana clamitans) were all observed on-site. While thirty-three (33) birds were identified at or near the Site, only four (4) species were observed to utilize the main grassy portion of the Site: common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), and Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna). Wildlife camera footage (“WL0􀏭”), plus Metro Vancouver’s wildlife camera data from 􀏮0􀏭􀏳, 􀏮0􀏭􀏴, and 􀏮0􀏭􀏵 (“MN0􀏯”) showed that American black bear (Ursus americanus) and deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are active year-round at the Site. It is recommended that future ecological restoration measures at the Site include management of invasive species such as reed canarygrass and cutleaf blackberry, increase of plant diversity through the installation of carefully selected native tree, shrub, and herb vegetation, and creation of habitat enhancement features such as coarse woody debris, rock piles/boulders, and side-channel or ephemeral pond habitat. Two (2) potential Restoration Plans are proposed with sample planting prescriptions. These Plans complement ten (10) additional recommendations based on research findings. Plan A, a short-term plan, is designed to be flexible and allow small sections of the Site to be restored over several years as resources such as budgets and labour become available. Plan A is also designed to accommodate volunteer involvement and implementation with guidance or professional direction. Plan B, a long-term plan, is designed to implement more extensive changes to the Site by building upon the methods of Plan A and creating additional ponds, pools, and channels through the Site to increase the Site’s capacity to retain water and reduce regular flooding onto nearby roads.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies→French-language works237,207→