MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Directional change in upland tundra plant communities 20‐30 years after seismic exploration in the Canadian low‐arctic

2009· article· en· W1988811098 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vegetation Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Environment and Protected Areas
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTundraPermafrostPlant communityVascular plantArcticVegetation (pathology)Arctic vegetationEcologyEcological successionDeciduousSpecies richnessEnvironmental scienceTree linePhysical geographyDisturbance (geology)GeographyGeologyBiologyGeomorphologyClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Question: What is the disturbance response of low‐arctic plant communities two to three decades after seismic exploration. Location: Mackenzie River Delta, low‐arctic, northwestern Canada. Methods: Plant communities in two upland tundra vegetation types were compared between winter seismic lines, created between 1970 and 1986, and adjacent “reference” tundra. Also, we used aerial surveys to quantify the total area impacted by visible linear features. Results: Vascular plant cover was significantly higher, and lichen cover significantly lower, on seismic lines than in reference tundra. The increase in vascular plant cover was attributable to deciduous shrubs and graminoids. There were significant differences in plant community composition between seismic lines and reference tundra but no differences in species diversity or richness. Betula glandulosa and Arctagrostis latifolia were significant indicator species for seismic lines, while Saussurea angustifolia was a significant indicator for reference tundra. Based on the aerial surveys, these effects apply to at least 90% of seismic lines from two‐dimensional programs in these habitat types during the 1970s. Conclusions: Vegetation composition and structure on 20‐30‐year‐old seismic lines differs from reference upland tundra despite no persistent differences in organic layer depth or depth to permafrost. We propose that this reflects: (1) successional redevelopment following changes in soil conditions and nutrient availability arising from the disturbance, and/or (2) disturbance‐initiated succession towards a community reflecting current climatic conditions.

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.

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 score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.202 · 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