MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003341212 · doi:10.1139/x02-116

Dynamics of an old-growth, fire-initiated, subalpine forest in southern interior British Columbia: tree size, age, and spatial structure

2002· article· en· W2003341212 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Joseph A. Antos, Roberta Parish

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbies lasiocarpaPinus contortaPicea engelmanniiCanopyForest dynamicsSubalpine forestDisturbance (geology)UnderstoryForestryEcologyStand developmentGeographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyMontane ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used dendrochronological analysis of over 2000 trees in four 50 × 50 m plots to reconstruct the history and dynamics of a 330-year-old, fire-initiated spruce-fir forest. All lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.), half of the canopy Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm.), but less than 10% of the canopy subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.) dated from the first 50 years of stand development. Tree-ring patterns of individual surviving trees showed no evidence of disturbance during the first 200 years after stand initiation; subsequently, episodes of disturbance are indicated by periods of release in understory fir. Although many fir owe their canopy position to release after disturbance, few canopy fir in the current stand established in response to either the stand-initiating event or subsequent partial disturbances. A seedling bank of long-lived fir appears critical to the dynamics of this forest. In contrast, establishment of almost all canopy spruce can be related to disturbance. This stand, although fire initiated, was structured primarily by a combination of partial disturbances and autogenic processes. We suspect that most old, fire-initiated stands in many forest regions are similarly structured and emphasize that the contribution of partial disturbances and autogenic processes should be fully assessed when examining their dynamics or managing such 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 score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations78
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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