MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032924462 · doi:10.1139/x01-092

Soil respiration and photosynthetic uptake of carbon dioxide by ground-cover plants in four ages of jack pine forest

2001· article· en· W2032924462 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Robert G. Striegl, Kimberly P. Wickland

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil respirationRespirationEnvironmental scienceGrowing seasonCarbon dioxidePhotosynthesisCarbon cycleFlux (metallurgy)Soil carbonSoil waterHydrology (agriculture)Atmospheric sciencesAnimal scienceAgronomyEcosystemBotanyChemistrySoil scienceEcologyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emission (soil respiration), net CO 2 exchange after photosynthetic uptake by ground-cover plants, and soil CO 2 concentration versus depth below land surface were measured at four ages of jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) forest in central Saskatchewan. Soil respiration was smallest at a clear-cut site, largest in an 8-year-old stand, and decreased with stand age in 20-year-old and mature (60–75 years old) stands during May– September 1994 (12.1, 34.6, 31.5, and 24.9 mol C·m –2 , respectively). Simulations of soil respiration at each stand based on continuously recorded soil temperature were within one standard deviation of measured flux for 48 of 52 measurement periods, but were 10%–30% less than linear interpolations of measured flux for the season. This was probably due to decreased soil respiration at night modeled by the temperature-flux relationships, but not documented by daytime chamber measurements. CO 2 uptake by ground-cover plants ranged from 0 at the clear-cut site to 29, 25, and 9% of total growing season soil respiration at the 8-year, 20-year, and mature stands. CO 2 concentrations were as great as 7150 ppmv in the upper 1 m of unsaturated zone and were proportional to measured soil respiration.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSoil and Unsaturated FlowFrench-language works237,207