Variability in forest floor at different spatial scales in a natural forest in the Carpathians: effect of windthrows and mesorelief
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial variability of humus properties in a natural fir–beech forest was studied along with the influence of windthrows and mesorelief on this variability. In 1720 windthrows the thickness and form of the organic horizons were studied in three positions — mound, pit, and undisturbed control. On undisturbed sites, substantial variability of thickness and forms of the organic horizons was found on a fine scale (0–10 m). Close spatial dependence of some humus characteristics was found on a coarser scale (20–120 m). The mesorelief was found to be one of the key autocorrelation factors. The level of spatial dependence was not uniform; it differed between the fermented and humification horizons and among their forms. The presence of windthrows increased the variability of humus thickness on both fine (0–10 m) and coarse (level of entire locality, i.e., 11 ha) scales. However, windthrows did not increase the variability of organic horizon forms (OHFs) on a fine scale. High variability of OHFs is probably a property of fully developed mature humus in a natural fir–beech forest. On a coarse scale, the presence of pits increased the frequency of fermented zoogenous and humification residual horizons on the study area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".