MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014163476 · doi:10.1029/1999gb001207

Annual carbon balance of Canada's forests during 1895–1996

2000· article· en· W2014163476 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Biogeochemical Cycles · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCarbon sinkAtmospheric sciencesCarbon cycleForest ecologyPrecipitationClimate changeEcosystemTerrestrial ecosystemDeposition (geology)Physical geographyEcologyGeographyMeteorologyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports annual carbon (C) balance of Canada's forests during 1895–1996 estimated using the Integrated Terrestrial Ecosystem C‐budget model (InTEC) [ Chen et al. this issue]. During 1895–1910, Canada's forests were small sources of 30±15 Tg C yr −1 due to large disturbances (forest fire, insect‐induced mortality, and harvest) in late nineteenth century. The forests became large sinks of 170±85 Tg C yr −1 during 1930–1970, owing to forest regrowth in previously disturbed areas and growth stimulation by nondisturbance factors such as climate, atmospheric CO 2 concentration, and N deposition. In recent decades (1980–1996), Canada's forests have been moderate sinks of 50±25 Tg C yr −1 , as a result of a tradeoff between the negative effects of increased disturbances and positive effects of nondisturbance factors. The nondisturbance factors, in order of importance, are (1) atmospheric N deposition (measured by a national monitoring network), (2) net N mineralization and fixation (estimated from temperature and precipitation records), (3) growing season length increase (estimated from spring air temperature records), and (4) CO 2 fertilization (estimated from CO 2 records using a leaf‐level photosynthesis model). The magnitudes of modeled nondisturbance effects are consistent with simulation results by the Carnegie‐Ames‐Stanford Approach (CASA) and are also in broad agreement with flux measurements above mature forest stands at several locations in Canada. Results for the disturbance effects agree with a previous study [ Kurz and Apps , 1996]. The overall C balance from InTEC generally agrees with that derived from tree ring data [ Auclair and Bedford , 1997] and from forest inventories. The combination of our result and that of Houghton et al. [1999] for the United States suggests that North America (> 15°N) was probably a C sink of 0.2‐0.5 Pg C yr± −1 during 1980s, much less than that of 1.7 Pg C yr± −1 estimated by Fan et al. [1998] using an atmospheric inversion method.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.175 · 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