Reply to comment by Messier et al. on “Present-day expansion of American beech in northeastern hardwood forests: Does soil base status matter?”Appears in Can. J. For. Res. <b>39</b>: 2273–2282 (2009).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We respond to the comment by Messier et al. (2011. Can. J. For. Res. 41: 649–653) on our recent paper questioning the possible influence of the base status of soils in the present-day expansion of American beech ( Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.) in Quebec (2009. Can. J. For. Res. 39: 2273–2282). From our observations, as well as from a large body of scientific evidence reporting on the high sensitivity of sugar maple ( Acer saccharum Marsh.) to the acid–base status of soils, we hypothesized that soil base cation depletion, caused in part by atmospheric deposition, is among the main factors involved in the present-day expansion of American beech over large areas in Quebec. Clearly, we suggested in our paper that acid deposition might act with other factors to explain the expansion of American beech. In this context, our conclusions are far from any oversimplified explanation, as stated by Messier et al., but rather, they point out a level of complexity above the one currently discussed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.035 | 0.042 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
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".