MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7165396956 · doi:10.70177/jsa.v1i6.1674

The Impact of Selective Logging on Forest Structure and Function

2024· article· W7165396956 on OpenAlexaff
Olivia Davis, Ethan Thompson, Emma Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Selvicoltura Asean · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of CalgarySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoggingForest structureMicroclimateForest managementForest ecologySustainable forest managementBiodiversityEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selective logging is a prevalent forest management practice aimed at balancing timber production and conservation. However, its effects on forest structure and function remain a topic of significant concern. This study aims to evaluate the impact of selective logging on the biodiversity, biomass, and ecological functions of forest ecosystems. We employed a comparative analysis method, where forest plots subjected to selective logging were compared to undisturbed control plots. Data were collected on tree species diversity, density, and biomass, alongside assessments of soil health and microclimate conditions. Our findings indicate that selective logging significantly alters forest structure by reducing tree density and species diversity, leading to an overall decline in biomass. Additionally, changes in soil composition and moisture levels were observed, negatively affecting the forest's ecological functions. The results underscore the importance of adopting sustainable logging practices that mitigate adverse effects on forest ecosystems. In conclusion, while selective logging can provide economic benefits, its detrimental impacts on forest structure and function necessitate careful management and monitoring to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Selvicoltura AseanSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207