MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W362133206

Habitat-based adaptive management at Mount Haggin Wildlife Management Area

2006· article· en· W362133206 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Richard B. Keigley, Craig W. Fager

Bibliographic record

VenueAlces · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillowWildlifeHectareHabitatGeographyWildlife managementEcologyForest managementWildlife conservationGrowth managementForestryBiologyAgroforestryLand use
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 22,743-hectare Mount Haggin Wildlife Management Area was purchased in 1976, in part for moose (Alces alces) winter range. Observed moose populations climbed from a low of 7 in 1976 to a high of 56 in 2000. A 4-step management program was initiated in 2000 consisting of definition of management objective, monitoring to determien if the objective was attained, developing a management strategy, and implementing the strategy. The management objective for browse was defined to be: browsing will not prevent young plants from attaining their potential stature, their growth being primarily limited by local environmental conditions. A survey of Geyer willow (Salix geyeriana) in critical moose habitat indicated that browse plants were 100% intensely browsed, suggesting that browsing could prevent willow height growth. Beginning in 2000, willow trend was monitored annually at 4 sites using an index based on the height of the tallest live stem and the height of the tallest, dead intensely browsed stem (LD Index). Low LD Index values indicated that browsing did prevent height growth. In 2000 moose harvest quotas were increased by 40%; in 2002 harvest quotas were increased an additional 7%. From 2000 to 2002, willow growth increased at all 4 locations. From 2002 to 2004, growth indicators changed relatively little at Sullivan Creek, Deep Creek, and French Creek; at these sites willow condition in 2004 had improved compared to willow condition in 2000. From 2002 to 2004, growth indicators declined markedly at American Creek; in 2004, growth indicators at American Creek were lower compared to measurements made in 2000. The improvement of willow condition at 3 sites was likely due to a combination of reduced moose numbers (due to an increase in harvest) and increased dispersal (due to low snow cover conditions). Over the study period, the sporting public complained of reduced moose sightability; harvest quotas were lowered substantially in 2003.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.003

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 head0.192
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlcesSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207