MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2057272471 · doi:10.1139/x05-261

<i>Suillus tomentosus</i> tuberculate ectomycorrhizal abundance and distribution in <i>Pinus contorta</i> woody debris

2006· article· en· W2057272471 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Leslie R. Paul, Bill Chapman, C. P. Chanway

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsCoarse woody debrisPinus contortaEctomycorrhizaeForest floorBotanyBiologySnagBasal areaEcologySoil waterMycorrhizaHabitatSymbiosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tuberculate ectomycorrhizae (TEM) have been observed in decaying coarse woody debris (CWD) and may play a role in the nitrogen economy of forests. This study evaluates the occurrence of Suillus tomentosus (Kauff.) Singer, Snell and Dick TEM within CWD in Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm. stands and relates their occurrence to CWD and soil characteristics as well as stand age. TEM were more abundant in the basal end of CWD incorporated in the forest floor than in the middle and top portions. Tubercle abundance was positively correlated with moisture and texture of CWD, degree of incorporation of CWD into the forest floor, and the amount of roots within CWD. There were significantly more TEM in CWD in young stands than in old stands and on sites with granitic soils than on sites with basaltic soils. Highly degraded CWD that is well incorporated in the forest floor appears to be an important microhabitat for the formation and occurrence of TEM.

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 score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies→French-language works237,207→