MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050455803 · doi:10.5558/tfc79047-1

Ice storm damage to eastern Ontario forests: 19982001

2003· article· en· W2050455803 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
A. A. Hopkin, Tim G. Williams, Robert Sajan, John Pedlar, Cathy Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryCanadian Forest Service
FundersGovernment of CanadaGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsTiliaHardwoodCrown (dentistry)FraxinusAceraceaeForestryYellow birchMapleBiologyEnvironmental scienceBotanyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following the 1998 ice storm, tree mortality and crown damage were monitored on permanent plots across eastern Ontario from 1998 until 2001. Conifer species were less damaged than hardwoods. Hardwood tree species showing the greatest crown damage included aspen, (Populus tremuloides), basswood (Tilia americana), and white birch (Betula papyrifera); major species showing the least damage included sugar maple (Acer saccharum), red oak (Quercus rubra) and hickory (Carya spp.). Generally, smaller diameter trees showed less damage than larger diameter trees. Significant mortality was recorded to silver maple (Acer saccharinum), basswood, ash (Fraxinus spp.) and aspen in 1998, although mortality in 2000 and 2001 was about 1–2%. Trees sustaining > 75% crown damage usually died by 2001. Key words: ice storm, ice damage, forest health

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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations39
Published2003
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207