MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995776812 · doi:10.1139/x02-085

Post-wildfire seedbeds and tree establishment in the southern mixedwood boreal forest

2002· article· en· W1995776812 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Isabelle Charron, David F. Greene

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeedbedBlack spruceTaigaForestryLitterHumusSowingGerminationAgronomyBorealEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeographyEcologySoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the post-wildfire establishment of jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.), black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP), and white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) in the southern mixedwood boreal forest of Saskatchewan, Canada. The major objective of the study was to determine the influence of post-wildfire seedbed types on the juvenile survivorship of trees. Through a combination of permanent plots and sowing experiments, we demonstrated that mineral soil, thin Polytrichum Hedw. moss, and humus are much more favorable than the organic fermentation (O f ) and litter seedbeds. We also show that differences among seedbeds are significantly more important than differences among species. In addition, the first year of a cohort has the highest rate of mortality, about 85% on mineral and humus seedbeds and 98% on O f seedbeds; differences in age-specific survivorship between seedbeds become muted by the end of the second year, and survivorship rates approach 1 by the end of the third summer. Finally, age structures showed that germination rates of black spruce and jack pine were very low the initial summer of the fire; that there was a peak in recruitment in the first post-fire summer; and that by the fourth year the recruitment declined to nearly zero.

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)0.003
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 score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations138
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207