MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002822165 · doi:10.2307/1552394

Population Structure of Three Dominant Sedges under Muskox Herbivory in the High Arctic

2000· article· en· W2002822165 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Tolvanen, Gregory H. R. Henry

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Antarctic and Alpine Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarexBiologyBiomass (ecology)Vegetation (pathology)RhizomeEcologyPopulationBotanyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated population structure of Carex aquatilis ssp. stans, Carex membranacea, and Eriophorum angustifolium ssp. triste in ungrazed and grazed (by muskoxen) high arctic sedge meadow vegetation. Age structure, density, biomass, growth, and reproduction of tillers were compared between sites in 1995 and 1996. Tillers were considerably older in ungrazed vegetation relative to grazed vegetation. The density and biomass of C. stans were significantly greater in grazed vegetation than in ungrazed vegetation, whereas the density of C. membranacea and E. triste was the same but the biomass was lower relative to the ungrazed meadows. The grazed plants of all species reproduced earlier, but no seedlings were found in grazed vegetation, in contrast to ungrazed vegetation. Carex stans appears to gain competitive advantage over the other two species in grazed vegetation. This may be due to the larger belowground biomass, the high phenotypic plasticity in rhizome lengths and more persistent rhizome connections. E. triste may be the least buffered against grazing due to its lower belowground biomass and the early disintegration of rhizomes. On the other hand, E. triste allocates more to sexual reproduction than the two other species.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

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)0.0150.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

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

Citations14
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic Antarctic and Alpine ResearchSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207