Model data to investigate wood frog abundance in 17-year post harvest variable retention mixed wood forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variable retention forest harvesting aims to reduce negative effect of harvesting on forest biodiversity, but its effectiveness is not well understood for many taxa. To better understand the effects of variable retention forest management and environmental features on amphibians, we used pitfall traps to capture wood frogs (Lithobates sylvaticus) across 4 levels of retention harvest (clearcut [0%], 20%, 50%, and unharvested control [100%]), and 2 forest types (deciduous and coniferous), in 17-year post-harvest forests in northwest Alberta. We mapped breeding sites and used a terrain moisture index (Depth-to-Water) derived from airborne LiDAR to examine relationships between relative abundance, breeding site proximity and soil moisture. Retention level alone had no effect on relative abundance, but in late summer (July and August) there was a significant interaction between retention level and forest type: capture rates decreased with amount of retention for deciduous forests, but increased with amount of retention in conifer forests. During late summer, capture rates were higher in conifer forests than in deciduous forests, with soil moisture (lower Depth-to-Water) positively related to capture rates. Though timber retention may be beneficial to wood frogs in the short-term, any impacts of forest harvesting on wood frog abundance was undetectable in stands 17 years post-harvest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.008 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".