MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019168731 · doi:10.1139/x06-302

Fuels on disturbed and undisturbed sites in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA

2007· article· en· W2019168731 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas A. Waldrop, Lucy Brudnak, Sandra Rideout–Hanzak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLitterEnvironmental scienceForestryDisturbance (geology)GeologyHydrology (agriculture)EcologyGeographyBiologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fuel distribution in the southern Appalachian Mountain region was measured in over 1000 study plots that were stratified by topographic position (aspect and slope position) and disturbance history. Few fuel differences occurred among topographic positions for undisturbed plots, indicating that fuel accumulation is no greater on highly productive sites than on less productive sites. Litter was slightly higher on undisturbed upper slopes (4.2 t/ha) than on lower slopes (3.7 t/ha) but woody fuels showed no significant differences. Rhododendron ( Rhododendron spp.) and mountain laurel ( Kalmia latifolia L.) were less common than expected, occurring on 25% and 42% of sampled plots, respectively. Disturbance history and type played a greater role in determining fuel loads than did topographic position. Disturbances had occurred on 30% of sample plots within the past 10 years and were most common on exposed slopes. Litter was significantly lower in burned plots (3.5 t/ha vs. 4.0 t/ha in undisturbed plots). One-hour fuels (1.0 t/ha) were significantly higher on beetle-killed plots than on undisturbed plots (0.7 t/ha) while larger woody fuels tended to be greater in plots subjected to beetle attack, fire, and wind.

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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations33
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207