MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4243198934 · doi:10.1139/x02-081

Browse occurrence, biomass, and use by white-tailed deer in a northern New Brunswick deer yard

2002· article· en· W4243198934 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Shawn F. Morrison, Steven J. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOdocoileusAbundance (ecology)Biomass (ecology)HabitatBiologyEcologyPopulationForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Winter browse abundance influences population growth of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in northeastern North America, where they regularly experience harsh winter conditions. We surveyed browse biomass and abundance among vegetation types and determined the extent of browse species selection and avoidance in a northeastern deer yard. Deer browsed 19 species but only red and striped maples (Acer rubrum L. and Acer pensylvanicum L.) were consistently selected. Regenerating, mature mixedwood, and mature spruce–fir stands were most likely to have high amounts of browse cover. Mature mixedwood stands had greater total browse biomass than submature hardwood and mature cedar stands. It is possible that our observed selection and avoidance of browse species reflects changes in availability as snow depth increased in middle to late winter. Thus, browse availability and use should be interpreted with respect to known patterns of deer habitat use during varying degrees of winter severity. We recommend that mixedwood stands be recognized as important part of winter habitat for deer. We underscore their importance for wintering deer, because they allow them to access shelter and browse simultaneously.

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 score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations21
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→