MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1986473767 · doi:10.1139/x03-153

Net nitrogen mineralization and nitrification in trembling aspen forest soils on the Boreal Plain

2003· article· en· W1986473767 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Nadia Carmosini, K. J. Devito, Ellie E. Prepas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of AlbertaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsMineralization (soil science)NitrificationTaigaNitrogen cycleEnvironmental scienceAgronomyAnimal scienceSoil waterNitrogenChemistryEcologySoil scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In situ net N mineralization and net nitrification rates were measured in organic forest floor (LFH) and mineral horizons of mature and logged trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) stands on the Boreal Plain in western Canada. Cumulative May to September mineralization for mature and logged plots was 1354 ± 534 and 1631 ± 1584 mg N·m–2, respectively, in the LFH horizon and 810 ± 394 and –305 ± 3957 mg N·m–2, respectively, in the mineral horizon. Net nitrification in mature and logged plots was 86 ± 142 and 658 ± 435 mg NO3-N·m–2, respectively, in the LFH horizon and 67 ± 50 and 409 ± 325 mg NO3-N·m–2, respectively, in the mineral horizon. Monthly mean NH4-N concentrations in the LFH tended to be higher in logged plots than in mature plots. Winter net N mineralization and nitrification rates in the LFH of mature plots were up to 7% and 11% of growing season net rates, respectively. In comparison, these rates in logged plots were up to 127% and 59% of the growing season net rates, respectively, indicating that winter activity may make a large contribution to annual net mineralization and nitrification after logging.

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 score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations28
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology→French-language works237,207→