MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1980234895 · doi:10.1139/x04-171

Effects of aspen (<i>Populus tremuloides</i>) sucker removal on postfire conifer regeneration in central Alaska

2005· article· en· W1980234895 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Jill F. Johnstone

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPinus contortaCanopyBiologySuckerDominance (genetics)BotanyGerminationBiomass (ecology)Woody plantBiomass partitioningSalicaceaeCrown (dentistry)AgronomyStand developmentShootEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This experiment tests the effects of early canopy development by asexually regenerating aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) on conifer recruitment after fire in central Alaska. The establishment and growth of three conifer species were observed in response to aboveground removal of aspen suckers for three seasons after burning by wildfire. Of the three species, Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. had the most widespread seed germination and showed the strongest negative response to the presence of the aspen canopy. Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP and Picea glauca (Moench) Voss had low germination and weak or neutral responses to aspen removal. Seedlings of all species accumulated more biomass in the removal treatment. Results from the experiment suggest that competition by aspen early after disturbance can significantly reduce conifer recruitment and growth, an effect that may reinforce the long-term dominance of aspen in asexually regenerating stands.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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