MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1888814839 · doi:10.1139/x2012-138

Patterns of flammability of the California oaks: the role of leaf traits

2012· article· en· W1888814839 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eamon A. Engber, J. Morgan Varner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlammabilityVegetation (pathology)ShrubEnvironmental scienceEcologyLitterBiologyFire regimePlant communitySpecific leaf areaFlammable liquidEcosystemBotanySpecies richnessPhotosynthesisChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fire is one of the most important processes driving plant community composition and structure. Fire regimes are largely governed by climate, vegetation structure, and individual plant traits that influence flammability. We assessed the mechanistic drivers of flammability for a diverse group of 18 California Quercus and allied Chrysolepis and Notholithocarpus species, addressing variation in leaf physical traits, growth form (tree or shrub), phylogeny (Quercus subgenera), and fire regime (low, mixed, or high severity). Differences in flammability were not strongly driven by leaf habit, leaf margin type, or surface area to volume ratio; simple measures of leaf size accounted for most of the observed variation. Further, leaf size was tightly linked to fuelbed depth, a known driver of fire behavior. Litter from trees was generally more flammable than litter from shrubs, primarily a function of differences in leaf size. A hierarchical clustering analysis on the flammability data set divided the oaks into three clusters of low, intermediate, and high flammability, corresponding closely to high-, mixed-, and low-severity fire regimes, respectively. The link between plant flammability traits and fire regime provides further evidence that individual species affect ecosystem processes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations111
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207