MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1908046954 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2014-0223

Spatial and temporal variability of forest floor duff characteristics in long-unburned<i>Pinus palustris</i>forests

2014· article· en· W1908046954 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jesse K. Kreye, J. Morgan Varner, Christopher J. Dugaw

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJoint Fire Science Program
KeywordsHumusEnvironmental scienceSpatial variabilityForest floorWater contentDeciduousVegetation (pathology)Bulk densityEcologySoil scienceForestrySoil waterGeographyGeologyBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Duff fires (smouldering in fermentation and humus forest floor horizons) and their consequences have been documented in fire-excluded ecosystems but with little attention to their underlying drivers. Duff characteristics influence the ignition and spread of smouldering fires, and their spatial patterns on the forest floor may be an important link to the heterogeneity of consumption observed following fires. We evaluated fuel bed characteristics (depths, bulk densities, and moisture) of duff in a long-unburned longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) forest and corresponding spatial variation across 100to 103m scales. Fermentation and humus horizon depths both varied (∼100% coefficient of variation) but with moderate to strong spatial autocorrelation at fine scales. Fermentation bulk density varied less than humus bulk density, which varied considerably at fine scales. Fermentation horizons held more moisture (average 49%–172%) and were much more variable than humus following rainfall, which remained stable and relatively dry (average 28%–62%). Humus moisture was moderately autocorrelated at fine scales, but fermentation moisture was highly variable, showing no evidence of spatial autocorrelation under dry, intermediate, or wet conditions. Observations from this study highlight the underlying spatial variability in duff, informing future sampling and fire management efforts in these long-unburned coniferous forests.

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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations33
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→