MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1997602189 · doi:10.1139/x04-042

Sphagnum invasion after clear-cutting and excavator mounding in a hypermaritime forest of British Columbia

2004· article· en· W1997602189 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Taro Asada, Barry G. Warner, A. Banner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSphagnumPeatThujaWestern HemlockTsugaProductivityEcologyBiologyGeographyBotanyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sphagnum invasion 8 years after an experimental clear-cut and mounding field trial was examined in a mesic western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don) – western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) forest on the outer north coast of British Columbia. Sphagnum invasion was prominent in wet hollows in the mounded blocks. Pioneer species, Sphagnum pacificum Flatb. and Sphagnum angustifolium (C. Jens. ex Russ.) C. Jens., were common despite being minor components in the precut forest. Sphagnum girgensohnii Russ., a species of forests, showed expanding colonies and contained some Sphagnum capillifolium (Ehrh.) Hedw. Comparisons of vertical growth and decomposition rates of Sphagnum in the experimental field site and in a nearby natural peatland suggest that peat accumulation potential in the Sphagnum colonies in the mounded blocks is similar to that in the natural peatland. These observations suggest that open peatland-type plant communities become established and paludification processes are beginning. Mounding may be an effective strategy for silvicultural management to improve tree growth in the short term but may initiate paludification and negatively impact forest productivity in the long term in hypermaritime lower productivity forests.

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 score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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