MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094161977 · doi:10.1139/x03-282

Analytical methods for defining standclearcut edge effects demonstrated for N mineralization

2004· article· en· W2094161977 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Todd Redding, Graeme D. Hope, Margaret Schmidt, Marie‐Josée Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMineralization (soil science)TransectEnvironmental scienceNitrificationSpatial ecologyEcologySoil scienceNitrogenChemistrySoil waterBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Edge effects are becoming an important forest management consideration, but information regarding the influence of edges on N cycling variables has not been well documented. In addition, the quantification of edge effects can benefit from the application of complementary spatial analysis methods. Forest floor N mineralization and environmental variables were intensively measured 5 years after harvest along transects crossing the north and south edges of a 1-ha clearcut, in a high-elevation Engelmann spruce – subalpine fir forest. Wavelet analysis and depth-of-edge influence (DEI) methods were used to locate and measure the spatial extent of edge effects on N mineralization. Then variance partitioning (partial redundancy analysis) was used to examine the influence of edges on N mineralization relative to the influence of other environmental factors. Initial NO 3 -N content and net nitrification markedly increased in the opening within 2–6 m of each edge. Net ammonification did not exhibit obvious edge-related spatial patterns. Spatial patterns of nitrification appeared to be more closely related to spatial changes in substrate quality than to soil temperature and moisture. Results of the wavelet and DEI analyses provided quantification of locations and functional extents of edge effects.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207