Ontario Goldenseal, Hydrastis canadensis, populations in relation to habitat size, paths, and woodland edge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationships between Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis L.) populations and habitat size, paths, and woodland edges were explored in order to provide information necessary for conservation planning.Habitat size was considered in the broad context of size of natural area as well as in the narrower context of size of suitable, more or less wooded habitat.Linear regression demonstrated a marginally significant negative relationship between number of stems and natural area size.A significant negative relationship was found between number of stems and habitat size.Chi-square tests, based on comparison of frequencies of Goldenseal patches with frequencies of random neighbourhood points within 5 m of paths and 10 m of woodland edges, revealed a significant association between Goldenseal and both paths and edges.Regression of population size with a disturbance factor, based on both paths and edges, revealed a significant positive effect of disturbance.These relationships suggest that Goldenseal may be adequately protected in relatively small areas, that certain kinds of disturbance may not be detrimental, and that simulation of natural disturbance could even lead to successful recovery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".