MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099535561

Integrating biodiversity and forestry practices in western Canada. Forestry Chronicle 79

2003· article· en· W7099535561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityWildlifeVariety (cybernetics)Forest managementPrioritizationClearcuttingLegislationBiodiversity conservation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In western Canada, some forestry companies are attempting to incorporate conservation of biodiversity as a new management pri-ority. Here we provide a review of management strategies currently implemented through a survey of companies in this region. Rep-resentatives from fourteen companies were asked to complete 30 questions designed to assess six broad issues, all of which are impor-tant for integrating biodiversity protection with timber production. Differences in provincial legislation were a major factor contributing to the prioritization of biodiversity objectives. All companies stressed that a variety of stand age classes and compositions was impor-tant for maintaining biodiversity. Green tree retention was a common approach proposed by all companies. Definitions of green tree retention varied significantly among companies, ranging from residual material left following standard clearcutting to merchantable trees selected specifically to foster wildlife and biodiversity. Most companies have proposed some monitoring aimed at biodiversity, although most plans target habitat structural features rather than directly monitoring species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.011
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy→French-language works237,207→