Applying criteria and indicators to assess ecological integrity of a boreal national park and adjoining forest management units / by Andrew James Promaine.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing and evaluating ecological integrity is a complex and often subjective task. However, recent legislative changes have forced ecosystem managers to develop more \nquantitative techniques to measure ecological integrity, particularly in Canada's national parks. \nUsing a combination of measures for forest sustainability (Canadian Council of Forest Ministers \nCriteria and Indicators, 1995) and existing regional data sets, a suite of indicators have been \nstructured into a hierarchical framework for monitoring \nbroad-scale, ecological forces (referred to as "drivers of change 11 as well as ecosystem, habitat and species dynamics for the Pukaskwa National Park ecosystem. The project's focus is on \ngaining a measurable understanding of the spatial and temporal aspects of the ecological integrity \nof the park and its broader ecosystem. \nThe indicators reveal that: (1) Pukaskwa National Park may be more unique than representative of \nthe central boreal uplands, and (2) increasing human demand for natural resources, particularly \ntimber, is playing a significant role in the ability of park management to maintain the park's \necological integrity. Road construction in the greater park ecosystem may play a significant role. \nThese are important results that shape the park's management approach and priorities. \nContinued use of this structural framework for ecological integrity will allow Pukaskwa National \nPark to be used as a benchmark for environmental change and \ncontribute to the understanding required for mitigating such changes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".