MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230246566 · doi:10.2458/azu_jrm_v56i5_best

Initial beaked hazel growth responses following protection from ungulate browsing

2003· article· en· W4230246566 on OpenAlexafffundabout
J. N. Best, E. W. Bork, N. L. Cool

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Range Management · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsPrairie Bible InstituteAlberta Environment and Protected AreasParks Canada
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsUnderstoryTwigShrubUngulateBiologyCanopyHerbivoreNational parkCompetition (biology)BorealBeaked whaleEcologyBotanyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beaked hazel (Corylus cornuta Marsh) dominates the understory of many Boreal Mixedwood forests in central Alberta including those in Elk Island National Park, where this species demonstrates a high tolerance to browsing. This research quantified changes in beaked hazel stem morphology (total twig length and number) and leaf and twig biomass of current annual growth, both inside and outside 4 newly established exclosures during the growing seasons of 1999 and 2000. At 2 sites, leaf and twig current annual growth of beaked hazel shrubs recently protected from herbivory increased significantly (P < 0.05) by 85 to 114% relative to that of browsed shrubs. At another site, the removal of browsing changed the morphology of beaked hazel shrub growth (P < 0.05), with protected shrubs producing 26% more twigs that were shorter in aggregate length by 27%. The final site exhibited no significant (P > 0.05) changes in current annual growth at the individual shrub stem level, potentially due to intense intra-specific competition. These results indicate that at several locations in the Park, the recent history of intense browsing appears to be limiting the annual growth of beaked hazel, including browse production. Despite the general increase in growth of individual beaked hazel stems, however, no changes in production were evident at the community level (P > 0.05) with the removal of browsing after 2 years. Protection from browsing did increase average beaked hazel height by 40% over the same period.

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)0.000
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Range ManagementSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207