MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201569775

MOOSE USE OF THE MOUNT MCALLISTER BURN IN NORTH-CENTRAL BRITISH COLUMBIA: INFLUENCE OF BURN SEVERITY AND SOIL MOISTURE

2021· article· en· W3201569775 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kayla G. McNay, R. Scott McNay, Krista L. Sittler, Roy V. Rea

Bibliographic record

VenueAlces : A Journal Devoted to the Biology and Management of Moose · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitatEnvironmental scienceHydric soilDeserts and xeric shrublandsWater contentGeographyRange (aeronautics)MoistureEcologyFire ecologyPhysical geographyHydrology (agriculture)Soil waterBiologyMeteorologySoil science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of recent wildfires in British Columbia (BC) on moose habitat and its use by moose are understudied, as are prescribed burning strategies that can be used to enhance moose habitat. Our objective was to investigate how 3 classes of fire severity (high, medium, low) interact with 3 soil moisture regimes (hydric, mesic, xeric) in determining how moose use post-fire habitat. In north-central BC, we studied moose use at 2 different spatial levels in the 5-year-old, 26,500 ha Mt. McAllister burn. At the site level, we estimated the density of fecal pellet groups and the percent of plants browsed by moose within plots of varying burn severity and soil moisture. At the landscape level, we investigated use from GPS locations of 7 radio-collared female moose at 3 orders of selection: we compared: 1) randomly distributed locations within the home range to randomly distributed locations throughout the entire burn (2nd order of selection); 2) use locations to randomly distributed potential locations within the home range (3rd order of selection); and daily use locations with potential movement locations (4th order of selection). At the site level, moose used areas of low/medium fire severity and hydric soil moisture. At the landscape level, moose preferred areas of medium fire severity at the daily order, and low/medium fire severity at both the home range and burn orders of selection. Our findings highlight that moose use of post-fire habitat varied by spatial scale and by order of selection and that researchers assessing use of burns by moose should consider multiple levels of investigation. Prescribed burning to enhance moose habitat should focus on low/medium fire severity at sites with mesic soil moisture.

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 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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlces : A Journal Devoted to the Biology and Management of MooseSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207