Comparison of the pre-settlement and present diversity of the forests of Central Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Original Crown Survey notes were used to infer the European pre-settlement \nforest diversity condition in the management units of Algonquin Park, French-Severn, \nNipissing and Temagami in central Ontario, Canada. This diversity condition was then \ncompared to the 1990 diversity of the forests as determined from forest resource \ninventory (FRI) maps. This study compared selected compositional proportions of the \nforest to identify potential changes that have occurred since 1890, \nTen sub-divided townships were randomly selected from Algonquin Park, French- \nSevern and Nipissing while all available non-sub-divided townships were used in the \nmanagement unit of Temagami. The 1890 data represented the pre-settlement condition \nof the forest and acted as the baseline to which the 1990 data was compared. The 1890 \ndata were derived from the original Crown Survey notes which were the forest cruise \nnotes of the day, giving detailed descriptions of the forest cover including species \ncomposition, abundance, diameter at breast height and disturbances. The 1990 data were \nprovided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in the form of FRI maps and \nspreadsheets. The data were sorted into working group proportions, hardwoods and \nsoftwoods, shade tolerance groupings and frequency of occurrence. \nThis study revealed that in terms of changes in working group proportions there \nhave apparently been region wide increases in maple (Acer spp.), while balsam fir (Abies \nbalsamea), hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and the ?other conifer? group (larch (Larix \nlarcind) and cedar (Thuja occidentalis)) have apparently decreased. This study revealed \nthat there has been an apparent increase in the proportions of hardwoods in the region \nwith a subsequent decrease in the proportion of softwoods. The analysis of shade \ntolerance groupings showed that there seems to have been an increase in the shade \ntolerant species while no large changes have occurred with the mid-tolerant species or the \nshade intolerant species. The regional comparison of frequency of occurrence of each \nspecies revealed that a total of nine of the fourteen species have apparent large changes. \nThis study has shown the usefulness of the Crown Survey notes in reconstructing \nthe pre-settlement condition of these forests. These survey notes were easily available \nand could be simply converted to spreadsheet form. Future forest management plans \nshould attempt to use these data as it will allow for more informed decision-making and \nwill lead to a better understanding of original diversity conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".