MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053639908 · doi:10.1139/b09-016

Seasonal variability of leaf area index and foliar nitrogen in contrasting dry–mesic tundras

2009· article· en· W2053639908 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matteo Campioli, Anders Michelsen, Roeland Samson, Raoul Lemeur

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiteit Gent
KeywordsLeaf area indexEvergreenDeciduousBiologyGrowing seasonSpecific leaf areaCanopyAgronomyDry seasonEcosystemSubarctic climateBotanyEcologyPhotosynthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assimilation and exchange of carbon for arctic ecosystems depend strongly on leaf area index (LAI) and total foliar nitrogen (TFN). For dry–mesic tundras, the seasonality of these characteristics is unexplored. We addressed this knowledge gap by measuring variations of LAI and TFN at five contrasting subarctic heaths during the growing season 2007, from about 2 weeks after bud burst until about 2 weeks before senescence. The communities generally showed an early season LAI and TFN increase, owing to leaf development of deciduous shrubs, and limited variations later on, owing to concurrent leaf growth and mortality of evergreen shrubs. For most of the communities, the TFN:LAI ratio was constant along the entire sampling period, indicating that leaf growth and mortality, triggers for both LAI and TFN, are more important than leaf N retranslocation, which only affects TFN. A constant TFN:LAI ratio facilitates the determination of TFN from LAI, which is easier to measure or simulate. However, a sheltered community showed an increment in the LAI of the deciduous canopy in mid–late season, paralleled by a decreased TFN:LAI ratio.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.230
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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207