MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065208579 · doi:10.1139/x08-113

Breakdown and invertebrate colonization of dead wood in wetland, upland, and river habitats

2008· article· en· W2065208579 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amy Braccia, Darold P. Batzer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceSociety of Wetland Scientists
KeywordsWetlandFloodplainHabitatLiquidambar styracifluaInvertebrateEcologyEnvironmental scienceColonizationCoarse woody debrisHydrology (agriculture)BiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breakdown of woody debris in river and upland habitats as well as the interactions between wood and invertebrates have been well described. Studies of wood in wetlands are rare, and far less is known about breakdown and invertebrate use of wood in these transitional habitats. This study experimentally assessed breakdown and invertebrate colonization of wood in a floodplain wetland and directly related patterns in the wetland to adjacent river and upland habitats. Over a 2.7 year period, we monitored breakdown and invertebrate presence in 10 cm diameter × 150 cm long sweetgum ( Liquidambar styraciflua L.) logs in a floodplain wetland (n = 8), river (n = 5), and upland (n = 4) habitat. Mass loss, decay condition change, and C/N ratios of wetland wood more closely resembled upland than river wood. The overall invertebrate assemblage associated with wetland wood was also more similar to that associated with upland than river wood. Breakdown and invertebrate colonization of wood in the floodplain wetland shared more characteristics with upland than river wood, perhaps because of the seasonal nature of flooding in the wetland. However, the ecology of wood in wetlands also had unique characteristics compared with either the uplands or the river.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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