MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094125036 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1111576109

Regional drought-induced reduction in the biomass carbon sink of Canada's boreal forests

2012· article· en· W2094125036 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zhihai Ma, Changhui Peng, Qiuan Zhu, Huai Chen, Guirui Yu, Weizhong Li, Xiaolu Zhou, Weifeng Wang, Wenhua Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon sinkBorealTaigaEnvironmental scienceClimate changeSink (geography)Carbon sequestrationBiomass (ecology)EcosystemEcologyCarbon cyclePhysical geographyForestryGeographyCarbon dioxideBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The boreal forests, identified as a critical "tipping element" of the Earth's climate system, play a critical role in the global carbon budget. Recent findings have suggested that terrestrial carbon sinks in northern high-latitude regions are weakening, but there has been little observational evidence to support the idea of a reduction of carbon sinks in northern terrestrial ecosystems. Here, we estimated changes in the biomass carbon sink of natural stands throughout Canada's boreal forests using data from long-term forest permanent sampling plots. We found that in recent decades, the rate of biomass change decreased significantly in western Canada (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba), but there was no significant trend for eastern Canada (Ontario and Quebec). Our results revealed that recent climate change, and especially drought-induced water stress, is the dominant cause of the observed reduction in the biomass carbon sink, suggesting that western Canada's boreal forests may become net carbon sources if the climate change-induced droughts continue to intensify.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.248
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations302
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207