MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2059978434 · doi:10.1139/x03-091

Soluble organic nitrogen in forests and adjacent clearcuts in British Columbia, Canada

2003· article· en· W2059978434 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Kirsten D. Hannam, Cindy E. Prescott

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsForest floorClearcuttingNitrogenSeedlingEnvironmental scienceForestryAgronomyEcologyChemistrySoil waterBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soluble organic N (SON) is recognized to be a source of N for plants, but the few studies of the effects of clear-cut harvesting on SON levels have reported inconsistent results. SON and soluble inorganic N (SIN) contents were measured in 1 mol/L KCl extracts of soil from forests and clearcuts in coastal cedar–hemlock forests near Port McNeill, B.C., and in high-elevation spruce–fir forests near Sicamous, B.C. To characterize the seedling root environment, sampling was confined to the top 20 cm of soil (consisting of forest floor at Port McNeill and forest floor plus mineral soil at Sicamous). Amino acid N and microbial N were determined on subsets of the samples. At both sites, SON content tended to be lower in clearcuts than in forests. Lower SON contents in clearcuts were caused by the removal of F-layer forest floor at Port McNeill and by reduced SON concentrations in the forest floor at Sicamous. Correlation analyses indicated close relationships between moisture content, SIN, SON, and microbial N. Changes in SON, SIN, and microbial N concentrations during buried bag incubations could not be explained simply by exchange among these three N pools. Free amino acid N accounted for 1–1.5% of the total SON content.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations40
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→