MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4231358389 · doi:10.24124/2015/bpgub1069

Assessing cumulative impacts of forest development on the abundance and distribution of furbearers.

2015· dissertation· en· W4231358389 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Michael C. Bridger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHabitat Conservation Trust Foundation
KeywordsHabitatMartenAbundance (ecology)GeographyEcologyNegative binomial distributionPopulationCumulative effectsEnvironmental scienceBiologyStatisticsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Furbearer populations across the central-interior of British Columbia, Canada, are exposed to the cumulative impacts of landscape change, particularly as a result of forest harvesting. I elicited knowledge from furbearer experts to develop habitat models for three furbearer species: fisher (Pekania pennanti), Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis), and American marten (Martes americana), and applied the models to reference landscapes to quantify changes in habitat availability and quality from 1990 to 2013. Where forest harvesting was extensive, the models predicted substantial declines in habitat for each focal species. I used trapping records and negative binomial count models to investigate the relationship between habitat change and population abundance of lynx and marten. The top-ranked count models identified combinations of trapping effort, trapline area, and habitat availability and quality as having significantly positive effects on capture success. These results demonstrate the utility of expert knowledge for studying cumulative impacts of landscape change on furbearers. --Leaf ii.

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)0.008
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 score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→