MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028360487 · doi:10.1071/wf13043

Biomass dynamics of central Siberian Scots pine forests following surface fires of varying severity

2014· article· en· W2028360487 on OpenAlexafffund
Elena A. Kukavskaya, Г. А. Иванова, Susan G. Conard, Douglas J. McRae, В. А. Иванов

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Wildland Fire · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceRussian Academy of SciencesU.S. Department of AgricultureNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsScots pineTaigaEnvironmental scienceBiomass (ecology)BorealVegetation (pathology)MossFire regimeForestryAtmospheric sciencesEcologyPhysical geographyEcosystemPinus <genus>GeographyGeologyBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2000–2002 nine 4-ha prescribed fires of various severities were conducted on experimental plots in mature Scots pine forest in the central Siberian taiga, Russia. Total above-ground living biomass decreased after low- and moderate-severity fires by 10 and 15%, whereas high-severity fire reduced living above-ground biomass by 83%. We monitored changes in fuel structure and biomass for 6–8 years following these fires. By 6–8 years after burning the ground fuel loading had recovered to 101, 96 and 82% of pre-fire levels after fires of low-, moderate- and high-severity. Down woody fuel loading increased by 0.18 ± 0.04 kg m–2 year–1. We developed regressions relating time since fire to changes in above-ground biomass components for fires of different severity for feather moss–lichen Scots pine forest of Siberia. Our results demonstrate the importance of both burn severity and composition of pre-fire surface vegetation in determining rates and patterns of post-fire vegetation recovery on dry Scots pine sites in central Siberia.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations40
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Wildland FireSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207