{"id":"W2150317998","doi":"10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.05513.x","title":"Comparison of two plant functional approaches to evaluate natural restoration along an old‐field – deciduous forest chronosequence","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Journal of Vegetation Science","topic":"Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":71,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"Université de Montréal; Espace pour la vie; Université du Québec à Montréal","funders":"Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies","keywords":"Chronosequence; Trait; Deciduous; Ecology; Silviculture; Ecological succession; Biology; Computer science","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.001091365,0.0005243631,0.0003505532,0.002432037,0.0005881178,0.0006664247,0.0005245704,0.0004176379,0.001101058],"category_scores_gemma":[0.001065044,0.0001550589,0.0003943442,0.001244668,0.0003499243,0.0002676415,0.0004268878,0.000302238,0.000215308],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001638944,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0007332548,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.08641466,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.3077105,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9995418,0.00008861243,0.00002472473,0.0001505943,0.0001414856,0.00005283806],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984306,0.0003961707,0.0002968858,0.00009836769,0.0005502549,0.0002277493],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0005386927,0.0001171689,0.9475235,0.0001469477,0.0003061602,0.00006420405,0.0005467098,0.001944796,0.02929512,0.0001272695,0.0001992089,0.01919015],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.000004652633,0.00006951898,0.9973476,0.000003811272,0.00001650729,0.00002055761,0.0001237149,0.001487873,0.0007337005,0.00001358197,0.000172945,0.000005490079],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9964229,0.0001420581,0.001743776,0.000005928561,0.000003743232,0.00004047061,0.0006478716,0.00002901971,0.0009640388],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9929335,0.00003525153,0.005073732,0.0000113082,0.000003561583,0.000077996,0.001190127,0.00001162845,0.0006629136],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.08641466,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.1718233,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.0977692429529556,"score_gpt":0.3435603172105013,"score_spread":0.2457910742575457,"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."}}