Phytosociological classification and ecological characterization of high arctic vegetation of Canada with some remarks in relation to vegetation of Svalbard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
n attempt was made to classify vegetation of the High Arctic of Canada at the higher level of syntaxonomy. Provisionally, one class, two orders and four alliances in addition to unclassified "polar desert complex" were distinguished. They were: the Salicetea arcticae, incorporating the Saxifragetalia oppositifoliae and the Caricetalia stantis. The Saxifragetalia oppositifoliae comprised of three alliances, i.e., Papaverion lapponici, Dryado-Salicion arcticae, and Cassiopion tetragonae, in addition to the "polar desert complex". Under the Caricetalia stantis, one alliance Caricion stantis was recognized. Vegetation of the Canadian High Arctic was compared with that of Svalbard. The most striking difference between the two regions was a presence/absence of Cassiope tetragona in the zonal phytogeocoenoses. The Cassiope-dominating communities are fairly common in Svalbard whereas they are generally limited in the Canadian High Arctic. Such difference was explained primarily by climatic characteristics and concomitant soil properties in such a manner that a highly continental climate of the Canadian High Arctic decelerates the soil leaching and eluviation to maintain generally high base status of soils. On the other hand, a strongly oceanic climate of Svalbard promotes soil leaching to result in a soil acidifi-cation. Cassiope tetragona is known to be acidophilous and thrives better in acidic soils. In the Canadian High Arctic, development of the Cassiope-dominating communities is rather restricted to the areas where soils are generally acidic. Such a climate-soil-vegetation interaction regulates development of zonal phytogeocoenoses to determine biogeoclimatic characteristics of the respective regions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".