{"id":"W1972834544","doi":"10.1139/x07-121","title":"Comparing power among three sampling methods for monitoring forest vegetation","year":2008,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Canadian Journal of Forest Research","topic":"Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":38,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"National Park Service; University of Minnesota; University of Wisconsin-Madison","keywords":"Understory; Species richness; Basal area; Quadrat; Sampling (signal processing); Environmental science; Abundance (ecology); Ecoregion; Vegetation (pathology); Forest inventory; Ecology; Forest ecology; Species diversity; Forestry; Geography; Forest management; Canopy; Ecosystem; Agroforestry; Biology; Computer science; Transect","routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":true,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":true},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.1161293,0.001817568,0.001954742,0.007467956,0.0008532371,0.002170819,0.00278218,0.002779463,0.00162767],"category_scores_gemma":[0.2707945,0.001579292,0.002444113,0.004314731,0.002067771,0.004727757,0.003497783,0.00143234,0.0007136301],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001566605,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0010362,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.003082398,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.004439292,"domain_scores_codex":[0.901971,0.06318194,0.005695835,0.007166991,0.02073796,0.001246316],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.4265776,0.5290768,0.009494312,0.01082049,0.02260857,0.001422201],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"design_other","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.01156797,0.0008922794,0.3657361,0.001765457,0.003734073,0.0002005965,0.003475607,0.01447503,0.005399256,0.004218879,0.002689311,0.5858455],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.007660917,0.01884015,0.5778299,0.001358464,0.007101327,0.002349832,0.00229879,0.3014269,0.03039699,0.02952379,0.02003385,0.001179055],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.5465001,0.007931958,0.4258812,0.001936211,0.0005131761,0.003103005,0.001209228,0.001532805,0.01139226],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.7829229,0.002584639,0.2073493,0.0006440678,0.000343863,0.003054295,0.001161151,0.0003782355,0.001561564],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1161293,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.614158,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.1458935785616292,"score_gpt":0.4011990839793808,"score_spread":0.2553055054177517,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}