MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W124671178 · doi:10.26749/rstpp.138.37

Characteristics and dynamics of the sand dune vegetation at North Bay, Tasmania

2004· article· en· W124671178 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
JB Kirkpatrick, T Leaman, Andy Pennington, T. Pollard

Bibliographic record

VenuePapers and proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayVegetation (pathology)GeologySand dune stabilizationGeographyPhysical geographyHydrology (agriculture)OceanographyGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vegetation of the coastal sand dunes at North Bay on the Forestier Peninsula was surveyed in 80 quadrats along seven transects. A total of six plant communities was identified; four from the back dunes and two from the fore dunes. The back dunes were dominated by Banksia marginata Cav. and the fore dunes by Spinifex sericeus R.Br. and Acacia sophorae (Labill.) R.Br. Size class analysis of age classes of the back dune vegetation indicated and eventual senescence of the dominant B. marginata and a replacement by closed canopy trees from wet euclypt forest, such as Notelaea ligustrina Vent. Two communities were found to be of high conservation significance: a S. sericeus grassland from the fore dune and a closed-forest community from the back dunes. Both communities are in a relatively undisturbed state, although the S. sericeus grassland has been invaded by exotic herbs. For these significant communities to remain intact, weeds and human activity must be controlled on the fore dunes and fire excluded from the back dunes.

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)0.000
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 score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePapers and proceedings of the Royal Society of TasmaniaSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207