MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1477676409

The impact of moose on ash productivity.

2002· article· en· W1477676409 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Georgy L. Lozinov, Г.В. Кузнецов

Bibliographic record

VenueAlces · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraxinusShootProductivityCrown (dentistry)BiologyBotanyForestryAgronomyEcologyHorticultureEnvironmental scienceGeographyMaterials science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data characterizing the impact of moose (Alces alces) on ash (Fraxinus spp.) seedlings in the broad–leaved forests of the Tula region are given. Resistance of ash to the strong browsing pressure is shown and also the resulting peculiarities of crown structure, including the position of shoots and branches. When ash is isolated from moose, annual accretion of shoot phytomass is 5 times more than in locations where ash is exposed to browsing; in leaves, phytomass is 10–12 times more than browsed ash. The large number of shoots and a great quantity of large leaves are considered as an adaptation of the ash tree to survival under the browsing pressure of moose.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlcesSame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207