MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031115561 · doi:10.1139/x05-047

Coarse woody debris in mid-aged stands: abandoned agricultural versus long-term forest land

2005· article· en· W2031115561 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Asko Lõhmus, Piret Lõhmus

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEesti Teadusfondi
KeywordsCoarse woody debrisTransectForestrySnagDeciduousLoggingEnvironmental scienceDebrisDead woodGeographyAgroforestryEcologyForest managementHabitatBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the 20th century, large agricultural areas in Eastern Europe became forested after their abandonment. To explore the value of these new forests for biota, we assessed volumes of coarse woody debris (CWD) on random transects in mid-aged (40–75 years old) stands. In mixed and deciduous forests that were not forested in the 1930s, downed tree (log) volumes were about two times lower than in cutover sites. The effect on snag volume depended on site type and was generally nonsignificant. Large-diameter CWD showed similar proportions in the long-term and new forest areas, but large, well-decayed trunks tended to be less frequent in the latter. No reduction of dead wood volume was found in new pine stands, 98% of which had previously been classified as mires (bogs). Hence the origin of mid-aged successional forests had affected their CWD supply (particularly logs) to some extent, but the general scarcity of CWD all over the forest land indicated much larger (at least five-fold) losses due to timber harvesting. We conclude that naturally reforested areas should not be automatically excluded from reserve establishment or other CWD-related conservation programmes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207