Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviewed the provincial, territorial, and state guidelines for the retention of treed riparian buffers after timber harvest in Canada and the United States. Comparisons amongst jurisdictions were facilitated through the use of a standardized template for the classification of waterbodies. Mean buffer widths varied from 15.1 to 29.0 m for different waterbody types when both countries were combined. However, Canadian jurisdictions had wider buffers (except for intermittent streams). In part, this was due to the high percentage of Boreal jurisdictions in Canada and Southeast jurisdictions in the United States. The Boreal region had the widest buffers while Southeastern jurisdictions had the narrowest buffers. Just under half (,44%) of the jurisdictions investigated had three or more modifying factors in the guidelines. Of these, waterbody type, shoreline slope, waterbody size, and presence of fish were the most common. Boreal and Pacific jurisdictions tended to have a more diverse set of waterbody size classes, waterbody types, and other modifying factors. Jurisdictions from the Midwest, Northeast, and Southeast maintained relatively simple ‘one-size-fits-all ’ guidelines. Jurisdictions without modifying factors for slope or presence of fish applied wider baseline buffers than jurisdictions with these factors. A large percentage of jurisdictions (,80%) allowed some selective harvest in buffers. However, these were often accompanied by relatively restrictive prescriptions. In comparison to the ecological recommendations, buffer widths for most jurisdictions were adequate to protect the aquatic biota and habitats but were, generally, less than recommended widths for terrestrial communities. In the future, two management trends are likely to continue, the shift towards more
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".