MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013889583 · doi:10.3390/su5031340

Increasing Woody Species Diversity for Sustainable Limestone Quarry Reclamation in Canada

2013· article· en· W2013889583 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anayansi Cohen-Fernandez, M. Anne Naeth

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersGraymont
KeywordsWoody plantLand reclamationPropagulePlant communityBiologySpecies diversityStock (firearms)AgroforestryEnvironmental scienceGeographyForestryAgronomyEcologyEcological successionArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental sustainability of post mined limestone quarries often requires reclamation to a diverse woody plant community. Woody species diversity may be severely limited if only nursery stock is relied on for propagation material; thus other sources must be evaluated. To address woody species establishment and survival from different propagule sources at a limestone quarry in western Canada, native trees (4) and shrubs (3) were seeded and transplanted into amended substrates (wood shavings, clean fill, unamended control) in two seasons (spring, fall). Plant sources were nursery stock, local forest wildlings, seeds and forest soil (LFH mineral soil mix). Plant emergence, survival, height, health and browsing were evaluated over four years. Survival was greater with fall transplanted seedlings than with spring transplanted. Survival was greater for Picea glauca, Pseudotsuga menziesii and Populus tremuloides from nursery than local source stock. Seedlings from seeds and LFH did not survive for any of the species. Growth and survival were affected by bighorn sheep. Amendments did not improve plant establishment. Diversity of the woody plant community was increased at the quarry in spite of the severe conditions.

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)0.002
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 score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.196
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207