MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biotic disturbance in expanding subarctic forests along the eastern coast of Hudson Bay

2008· article· en· W2020811557 on OpenAlexaff
Marco Caccianiga, Serge Payette, Louise Filion

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCenter for Northern Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBark beetleSubarctic climateDendrochronologyDisturbance (geology)BayEcologyPopulationBark (sound)Picea abiesBiologyTree lineTaigaEnvironmental scienceGeographyClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

* The past and present occurrence of insect disturbance on white spruce (Picea glauca) trees was evaluated at their northern range limit on the eastern coast of Hudson Bay, and its effects on tree growth and population dynamics studied. * Three sites were sampled along an altitudinal gradient. Ring-width chronologies and stem analysis were used to evaluate tree growth. The occurrence of holes in the bark, of resin pockets and blue-stain fungi, and ring-width evidence for growth releases were used to assess the impact of bark beetle. * The white spruce population was established at these sites in the 17th century. Since their establishment, the spruce trees have developed a tree growth form, except at the uppermost site, where severe growth suppression occurred in the 19th century. Bark beetle and blue-stain fungi occurred with different timing and intensity. Their highest occurrence, associated with high mortality rates, was at the lowest site in the late 20th century. In the uppermost sites, biotic disturbance has occurred since the 18th century, associated with evidence for mechanical disturbance. * The simultaneous arrival of white spruce in the area resulted in a synchronous onset of spruce beetle activity driven by tree ageing. Unfavourable climatic conditions affected tree growth severely in the most exposed sites.

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 score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.243
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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207