MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044948793 · doi:10.1139/x05-215

Temporal development of decaying log habitats in wet sprucefir stands in east-central British Columbia

2005· article· en· W2044948793 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
S. Craig DeLong, Lori D. Daniels, B. H. Heemskerk, Ken Olaf Storaunet

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbies lasiocarpaPicea engelmanniiHabitatForestryEcologyVegetation (pathology)GeographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyPinus contorta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time since death and time since fall were estimated for hybrid spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss × Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm.) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.) logs to quantify temporal changes in log decay and habitat quality in east-central British Columbia. We sampled 136 logs (72 spruce and 64 fir) for species, size, and morphological attributes and used dendroecological techniques to estimate year of death (n = 97) and fall (n = 22). Time since death and time since fall of spruce and fir were similar in decay classes 1 and 2; fir was older than spruce in more advanced stages of decay. Discriminant analysis based on time since fall correctly classified logs into four decay classes for 67% and 80% of spruce and fir, respectively. Function as wildlife habitat changed significantly as logs decayed. Logs served as elevated runways for approximately 15 years and then increased in value as habitat for invertebrates and insectivores as wood softened and vegetation established. Concealed spaces increased as the wood decomposed but decreased when logs collapsed. We conclude that decay classes represent biologically and statistically significant stages of log decomposition that are relevant to wildlife habitat and therefore provide a useful construct for model development and field interpretation..

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)0.001
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 score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations28
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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