MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978310520 · doi:10.1080/21580103.2013.801174

Estimating carbon stocks in Korean forests between 2010 and 2110: a prediction based on forest volume–age relationships

2013· article· en· W1978310520 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hangnan Yu, Woo Kyun Lee, Yowhan Son, Doo-Ahn Kwak, Kijun Nam, Moonil Kim, Jungyeon Byun, Seungjun Lee, Tae‐Sung Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Science and Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLarix kaempferiPinus koraiensisForest inventoryCarbon stockEnvironmental scienceForestryThinningCarbon sequestrationPinus densifloraStock (firearms)Larix gmeliniiGeographyClimate changeLarchForest managementEcologyBiologyCarbon dioxideBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was focused on attempting to estimate the potential change in forest carbon stocks between 2010 and 2110 in South Korea, using forest cover maps and National Forest Inventory (NFI) data. Allometric functions (logistic regression models) of volume–age relationships were developed to estimate carbon stock change during the next 100 years for Pinus densiflora, P. koraiensis, P. rigida, Larix kaempferi and Quercus spp. As a result, we found that the average forest volume would increase from 126.89 m3/ha to 246.61 m3/ha and the average carbon stocks would increase from 50.51 Mg C/ha to 99.76 Mg C/ha during the next 100 years. The carbon stocks would increase by approximately 0.5 Mg C/(ha·yr), a high value if other northern countries' (Canada, Russia, China, etc.) rates of increase are considered, as these are −0.10 to 0.28 Mg C/(ha·yr) as determined in a previous study. This can probably be attributed to the fact that the change in carbon stocks was estimated without the consideration of mortality, thinning, and tree species' change in this study, which is may lead to somewhat overestimation of carbon sequestration. However, this study is meaningful, as the estimated carbon stocks were based on the data from NFI and forest cover maps.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest Science and TechnologySame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207