MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379616645 · doi:10.2737/nrs-gtr-p-211-paper58

Tree Assisted Migration in a Browsed Landscape

2023· article· en· W4379616645 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Émilie Champagne, Alejandro A. Royo, Jean‐Pierre Tremblay, Patricia Raymond

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology, Conservation, and Geographical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsMinistère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs
KeywordsTree (set theory)GeographyEvolutionary biologyEcologyBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assisted migration is a promising silvicultural tool that could promote the sustainability of forest ecosystems and ecological services in the context of climate change.Assisted migration plantations, however, could be at a high risk of failure when mammalian herbivores (e.g., deer and hares) are abundant.Here, we developed an approach based on chemical content to predict the susceptibility to browsing of translocated seedlings.First, we determined which chemical compounds would be appropriate proxies of susceptibility.Second, we analyzed the chemical content of eight North American species selected for an assisted migration plantation and determined the relative susceptibility to herbivores of species and geographic provenances within species.We compared the ranking to browsing reported in the literature.For six species out of eight, our susceptibility rankings were congruent with information available in the literature.With this study, we provide a tool that could guide managers in species and provenance choices for assisted migration when contending with a high risk of browsing.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 head0.230
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEcology, Conservation, and Geographical StudiesFrench-language works237,207