MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037562785

Effects of forest management, weather, and landscape pattern on furbearer harvests at large-scales

2017· dissertation· en· W7037562785 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)LoggingWildlifeForest managementPredictive powerVegetation (pathology)Spatial ecologyScale (ratio)Forest inventoryLandscape ecology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 50 years, Ontario?s forest landscape has changed due to ever increasing
\nnatural resource management. The natural vegetation pattern, forest composition, and the
\nfire regime have been altered. Maintaining wildlife species diversity is an important goal
\nof current forest management. However, little is understood about the impacts of large-scale
\nland use and landscape scale processes that influence wildlife. This project used
\ntrapline harvest statistics from 1972-1990 to identify broad-scale effects of forest
\nmanagement, weather, and landscape structure on furbearers (marten, beaver, fisher, and
\nlynx).
\nSpatial variables for logging and fire disturbance, forest cover type, weather, spatial
\npattern, and road density were compiled in a geographic information system (GIS) and
\nstandardized by trapline. Regression models were created for each species and analysed
\nat five spatial scales ranging from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR)
\ndistrict (5000 sq. km) to the ?provincial? (800,000 sq. km) scales. The models were then
\ncompared temporally and spatially for consistency in variable contribution to the
\nregression models. Forest cover type, weather, and spatial pattern variables accounted for
\nthe greatest variation in furbearer harvest, while disturbance and road density variables
\naccounted for little variation. Model predictive capability ranged from 10 to 55% for all
\nspecies. Marten models had the greatest predictive power (r2) at the ?OMNR District?
\nscale, while fisher and beaver models had the highest r2 values at the ?Hills site region?
\nand ?provincial? scales, respectively. Lynx models were inconsistent with relatively low
\npredictive power at all scales.
\nThe models suggest that disturbance from forest management is not affecting furbearer
\nharvests. Landscape scale variables such as forest cover type, weather, and landscape
\npattern account for a relatively high proportion of marten, beaver, and fisher harvests.
\nThese variables and the predictive power of the models reveal the influence that broad
\nlandscape factors have on wildlife.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.222
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University)Same topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207