MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018167217 · doi:10.1139/x04-031

Soil carbon sequestration with forest expansion in an arctic foresttundra landscape

2004· article· en· W2018167217 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heidi Steltzer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTundraEnvironmental scienceCanopySoil carbonLitterTaigaSoil waterCarbon sequestrationForestryEcologyArcticGeographyBiologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) pools were measured under the canopy of 29 white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) trees and in the surrounding tundra 3 and 6 m away from each tree at three sites of recent forest expansion along the Agashashok River in northwestern Alaska. The aim was to characterize the potential for forest expansion to lead to increased soil C pools across diverse tundra types. Soil C beneath the trees correlated positively with tree age, suggesting that tree establishment has led to C storage in the soils under their canopy at a rate of 18.5 ± 4.6 g C·m–2·year–1. Soil C in the surrounding tundra did not differ from those under the trees and showed no relationship to tree age. This characterization of the soil C pools at the 3-m scale strengthens the assertion that the pattern associated with the trees is an effect of the trees, because tree age cannot explain variation among tundra sampling locations at this scale. Potential mechanisms by which these white spruce trees could increase soil C pools include greater production and lower litter quality.

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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.296
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

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207