MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1936464947 · doi:10.1139/x2012-077

Species, live status, and diameter are important tree features for diversity and abundance of tree microhabitats in subnatural montane beech–fir forests<sup>1</sup>This article is one of a selection of papers from the International Symposium on Dynamics and Ecological Services of Deadwood in Forest Ecosystems.

2012· article· en· W1936464947 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laurent Larrieu, Alain Cabanettes

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConseil Régional Midi-Pyrénées
KeywordsBeechFagus sylvaticaSnagAbies albaCoarse woody debrisMontane ecologyBiodiversityForestryAbundance (ecology)FagaceaeForest ecologyEcologyDiameter at breast heightBiologyGeographyEcosystemHabitatPicea abies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because quantitative data on the distribution of whole microhabitat sets are still lacking to indirectly assess taxonomic biodiversity in forests, we studied the distribution of seven key microhabitat types in 10 montane European beech ( Fagus sylvatica L.) – silver fir ( Abies alba Mill.) forests (Pyrénées, France) that had not been harvested for several decades. We examined 2105 live trees and 526 snags. Frequencies of cavities and dendrothelms were significantly higher on live beech than on fir. Sap runs were strictly found on live fir. Frequencies of cracks and saproxylic fungi were significantly higher on snags than on live trees. Seventy percent of live beeches but only 18% of firs carried one or more microhabitats. For both beech and fir and for each microhabitat type, we found, using the recursive partitioning method, one to three diameter thresholds that each corresponded to a significant change in the probability of microhabitat presence. When considering the whole microhabitat set, the most significant diameter thresholds were 42, 60, 73, and 89 cm for beech and 99 cm for fir. We suggest that forest managers conserve (i) mixed stands and (ii) beech with a diameter at breast height >90 cm and fir >100 cm. These rules should be adapted for each forest ecosystem.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations139
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207