MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104949939 · doi:10.1139/x07-216

Fire history and the establishment of oaks and maples in second-growth forests

2008· article· en· W2104949939 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Todd F. Hutchinson, Robert P. Long, Robert Ford, Elaine Kennedy Sutherland

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMapleFire historyForestryDendrochronologyBasal areaGeographyArchaeologyBiologyEcologyClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used dendrochronology to examine the influence of past fires on oak and maple establishment. Six study units were located in southern Ohio, where organized fire control began in 1923. After stand thinning in 2000, we collected basal cross sections from cut stumps of oak (n = 137) and maple (n = 204). The fire history of each unit was developed from the oaks, and both oak and maple establishment were examined in relation to fire history. Twenty-six fires were documented from 1870 to1933; thereafter, only two fires were identified. Weibull median fire-return intervals ranged from 9.1 to 11.3 years for the period ending 1935; mean fire occurrence probabilities (years/fires) for the same period ranged from 11.6 to 30.7 years. Among units, stand initiation began ca. 1845 to 1900, and virtually no oak recruitment was recorded after 1925. Most maples established after the cessation of fires. In several units, the last significant fire was followed immediately by a large pulse of maple establishment and the cessation of oak recruitment, indicating a direct relationship between fire cessation and a shift from oak to maple establishment.

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)0.000
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 score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

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 studies0.0000.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations96
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207