MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132935634

Forest Restoration in Southern Ontario's Conservation Areas Impacted by Emerald Ash Borer: A Case Study with Credit Valley Conservation

2022· other· en· W7132935634 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Monique Dosanjh

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsEmerald ash borerForest restorationRestoration ecologyAfforestationDisturbance (geology)Forest managementTree plantingIntroduced species
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ash tree mortality and removal due to emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) (EAB) has increased forest degradation in parts of North America. The current project uses Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) as a case study to determine effective forest restoration strategies to restore areas impacted by EAB, with the results applicable to areas impacted by EAB throughout North America. CVC's forests, which were already heavily affected by invasive plant species before the introduction of EAB, are now dealing with the loss of overstory ash that is increasing the spread of invasive plant species and leading to further forest degradation. By using GIS to identify priority restoration areas and the literature to outline management strategies, the current project explores the best approach for conservation authorities to manage these EAB-impacted areas and mitigate the negative impacts of invasive plants and loss of overstory ash. Techniques that manage invasive plants, including chemical, biological, and mechanical control, along with the increased planting of native tree species will help restore forests and improve their ecological function. These approaches will also help deal with the impact of climate change and increased human disturbance by generally increasing forest diversity and improving forest resilience.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→French-language works237,207→