MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spatial and temporal pattern of white spruce regeneration within mixed‐grass prairie in the Spruce Woods Provincial Park of Manitoba

2002· article· en· W1999043367 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sophan Chhin, G. Geoff Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biogeography · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrositeTransectJuniperGeographyForestrySeedlingGerminationEcologyBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim Thirty white spruce [ Picea glauca (Moench) Voss] islands were sampled to study the temporal and spatial pattern of white spruce regeneration at its southern limit of distribution. Location The study was conducted within three mixed‐grass prairies in the Spruce Woods Provincial Park (SWPP) of south‐western Manitoba. Methods White spruce seedlings, saplings and trees were mapped and measured in relation to eight sectors and five zones delimited by four transect lines extending through the centre of each island oriented north to south, west to east, north‐west to south‐east and north‐east to south‐west. Results Temporal patterns of regeneration were negatively correlated with July temperature at the time of establishment and up to 30 years after establishment. Height growth of seedlings and saplings were also negatively correlated with July temperature. Seedlings, saplings and trees were concentrated on the north vs. south aspect and within 4–12 m from the island centre. Seedlings grew almost exclusively in association with creeping juniper ( Juniperus horizontalis Moench). Main conclusions Results of the study suggest that white spruce recruitment and growth reflect past climatic variation, and microclimatic and microsite conditions promoting soil moisture retention and/or fire risk reduction facilitate white spruce germination and establishment.

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)0.001
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations34
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiogeographySame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207