MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034200791 · doi:10.1139/x06-240

Phytolith evidence for the absence of a prehistoric grass understory in a Jeffrey pine – mixed conifer forest in the Sierra San Pedro Mártir, Mexico

2007· article· en· W2034200791 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rand R. Evett, Ernesto Franco‐Vizcaíno, Scott L. Stephens

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSilicon Effects in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPacific Northwest Research StationDivision of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California
KeywordsUnderstoryPhytolithTramplingPrehistoryGeographyOvergrazingGrasslandVegetation (pathology)GrazingForestryEcologyArchaeologyAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phytolith analysis was applied to several sites in a Jeffrey pine ( Pinus jeffreyi Grev. & Balf.) – mixed conifer forest in the Sierra San Pedro Mártir, Baja California, Mexico, to explore the hypothesis that the introduction of livestock in the late 18th century led to overgrazing of a prehistoric grass understory, resulting in changes to the prehistoric fire regime observed in the tree-ring fire-scar record. Stable soils in regions with extensive prehistoric grass cover retain a high concentration of total phytoliths and high percentage of grass phytoliths, regardless of historic vegetation changes. Phytoliths extracted from soil samples collected from several sites in the Sierra San Pedro Mártir revealed total phytolith concentrations in forest soils were generally <0.5% by mass, with most <0.1%, whereas grass phytoliths were generally <10% of the total, values consistent with the interpretation of a forest with sparse grass cover in the understory. Phytolith evidence suggests that there was minimal grass available for grazing in prehistoric Sierra San Pedro Mártir forests; overgrazing a grass understory was probably not a major driver of changes in the prehistoric fire regime.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations25
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSilicon Effects in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207