Population Assessment of The Northern Spotted Owl in British Columbia British Columbia Ministry of Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1997, the Spotted Owl Management Plan was implemented in British Columbia to prevent the extirpation of this Endangered species from Canada. This plan currently maintains an average 62 % (+/- 15 % SD, n = 101) suitable habitat for Spotted Owls within 101 Long-term Activity Centres distributed among 21 Special Resource Management Zones (SRMZs) totaling 363,000 ha in the Chilliwack and Squamish Forest Districts. The long-term goal of the Spotted Owl Management Plan is to maintain eventually a minimum of 67 % suitable habitat within these Long-term Activity Centres and thus stabilize the owl population. We monitored the occupancy of Spotted Owls within 40 survey areas inside and outside SRMZs between 1992 and 2001. We compared the change in occupancy observed during the study with the slow population decline predicted by a spatially-explicit simulation model used to assess the Spotted Owl Management Plan. Within our survey areas, Spotted Owl occupancy declined by 49 % between 1992 and 2001. The average annual rate of decline was-7.2 % (+/- 1.7%, 90 % C.I.). This rate of decline is 4.8 times faster than the rate predicted by the spatially-explicit model. The substantial decline in
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".