The effects of alternative harvesting practices on saproxylic beetles in eastern mixedwood boreal forest of Quebec /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I examined saproxylic beetle responses in two silvicultural systems of the eastern mixedwood boreal forest of Quebec. I first investigated habitat-use and aspen-host use of saproxylic and bark and wood-boring beetles in remnant forest patches (cut-bock separators and small patches) left after harvest, theorized to resemble natural post-fire residual trees and snags. A second study focused on effects of partial cutting, a method that may serve to imitate natural succession dynamics. Remnant forest patches had the highest saproxylic and bark and woodboring beetle species richness and relative abundance. Although non-significant, higher larval densities were also collected from remnant forest patches. In the second study, partial cut patches had an intermediate saproxylic beetle assemblage compared to uncut forest and clearcuts. This research has brought new information on the effects of alternative harvesting practices on saproxylic beetles, supporting the hypothesis that biodiversity is best preserved based on forest management that is diversified and based on natural disturbance dynamics.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".