MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019096962 · doi:10.1139/x08-034

Changes to preindustrial forest tree composition in central and northeastern Ontario, Canada

2008· article· en· W2019096962 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Fred Pinto, Stephen Romaniuk, Moira M. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersNipissing UniversityMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsLarchForestryGeographyEcologyTsugaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preindustrial forest composition for >180 000 km 2 throughout central and northeastern Ontario was recreated from Ontario Crown land survey notes (1816–1955) and compared with existing forest composition derived from current Forest Resource Inventories (1998–2009) in each of Site Regions 3E, 4E, and 5E. A validation analysis was performed using the Forest Resource Inventory data to test the assumption that sampling the land survey tree species composition along township boundaries is adequate in describing the composition of the whole forest. The majority of tree species in each of the three site regions validated successfully. A binary logistic regression model allowed birch genera to be classified at the species level to aid in the interpretation of survey notes. All analyses showed significant reductions in conifers (especially red pine ( Pinus resinosa Ait.), white pine ( Pinus strobus L.), and eastern larch ( Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch)) and significant increases in maple ( Acer spp.), oak ( Quercus spp.), white birch ( Betula papyrifera Marsh.), and poplar ( Populus spp.).

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations49
Published2008
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207