MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099900045 · doi:10.1139/x02-051

Process and patterns of duff consumption in the mixedwood boreal forest

2002· article· en· W2099900045 on OpenAlex
Kiyoko Miyanishi, Edward A. Johnson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceTaigaBorealInterceptionBlack spruceForestryWater contentFire regimePrecipitationPinus <genus>EcologyGeographyGeologyEcosystemBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Postfire tree recruitment in the boreal forest is restricted to patches from which the duff (organic layer) has been removed by fire. Duff consumption occurs by smoldering combustion, propagation of which is determined by bulk density, moisture content, and depth. This study investigated interactions among these factors, their spatial distribution, and spatial patterns of duff consumption in two wildfires. A hypothesized positive relationship between moisture content and depth was supported by a laboratory study. Duff characteristic data were collected from two burns and comparable unburned areas of mixedwood forest in western Canada to describe and explain patterns of duff consumption within and between top-slope Pinus banksiana Lamb. – Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP stands and lower slope pure stands of Picea mariana on glaciofluvial hillslopes. In unburned stands, bulk density did not differ significantly between stands, while depths were significantly greater in Picea stands. With moist duff, consumption was significantly greater in Picea than in Pinus–Picea stands as depth limited smoldering in the thin duff of Pinus–Picea stands. With dry duff, smoldering was propagated regardless of depth resulting in no differences between stand types. The spatial correlation between burned patches and fire-killed trees was explained by within-stand spatial variation in duff moisture due to precipitation interception by tree crowns.

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.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.252 · 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