Carbon stocks in managed conifer forests in northern Ontario, Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ja:p>Carbon pools and net primary productivity (aboveground) were measured in managed stands of jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) and black spruce (Picea mariana [Mill.] B.S.P.), ranging in age from 10 to 53 years, in the Lake Nipigon area of northern Ontario. Organic carbon in the forest floor and surface mineral soil (top 15 cm) ranged from 13 to 46 Mg C ha and 10 to 29 Mg C ha, respectively. Carbon in aboveground tree biomass ranged from 11 to 74 Mg C ha in crop trees, and 0 to 11 Mg C ha in non-crop trees. Coarse woody debris (downed woody debris and snags) contained between 1 and 17 Mg C ha. Understory vegetation rarely represented more than 1% of total ecosystem carbon accumulation, but was responsible for a larger proportion of aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP). Rates of ANPP (expressed as carbon) ranged from 0.8 to 3.5 Mg C ha y. Carbon stocks in managed stands were compared with published values from similarly aged fire-origin stands in the North American boreal region. Carbon stocks in our study stands generally exceeded those in unmanaged fire-origin stands of the same age, due to larger tree and forest floor carbon pools.<ja:sup>-1</ja:sup><ja:sup>-1</ja:sup><ja:sup>-1</ja:sup><ja:sup>-1</ja:sup><ja:sup>-1</ja:sup><ja:sup>-1</ja:sup><ja:sup>-1</ja:sup></ja:p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it