MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1887989056 · doi:10.1007/s11056-015-9513-5

Restoring forests: What constitutes success in the twenty-first century?

2015· article· en· W1887989056 on OpenAlexaff
Douglass F. Jacobs, Juan A. Oliet, James Aronson, Andreas Bolte, James M. Bullock, Pablo J. Donoso, Simon M. Landhäusser, Palle Madsen, Shaolin Peng, José María Rey Beñayas, John C. Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Forests · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsRestoration ecologyEnvironmental resource managementResistance (ecology)StakeholderEcologyAdaptive managementForest restorationClimate changeBusinessEcosystemForest ecologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations170
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNew ForestsSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207