MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4226356817 · doi:10.22215/etd/2022-14933

The Independent Effects of Forest Amount, Fragmentation, and Corridors on Forest Understory Plant Diversity

2022· dissertation· en· W4226356817 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph Gabriel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessUnderstorySpecies evennessEcologySpecies diversityFragmentation (computing)GeographyBiodiversityPlant communityGamma diversityBiologyAlpha diversityCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well documented that forest amount in the surrounding landscape increases understory plant species diversity in a forested site. However, the extent to which fragmentation and structural connectivity (wooded corridors linking patches) also influence understory plant diversity remains largely unknown due to repeated conflation with forest amount. Here, we test the independent effects of these three landscape variables on understory plant species diversity at 70 forested sites in Ontario. Forest amount had large positive effects on richness and negative effects on species assemblage uniqueness. Fragmentation reduced species richness and evenness, through negative effects on short-distance dispersers. Both had their maximum effects within 5 km of sites. Connectivity did not affect species richness but reduced both evenness and species assemblage uniqueness. The results demonstrate that maximizing forest amount is of primary importance for conserving forest plants, and increasing structural connectivity is not a viable strategy for maintaining forest plant communities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies→French-language works237,207→