MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107440259 · doi:10.1139/x05-104

The establishment and development of oak forests in the Ozark Mountains of Arkansas

2005· article· en· W2107440259 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rick Soucy, Eric Heitzman, Martín A. Spetich

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSouthern Research StationU.S. Forest ServiceUniversity of Arkansas
KeywordsPine barrensForestryFagaceaeDendrochronologyDisturbance (geology)GeographyOak forestStand developmentSeedlingAgroforestryEcologyBiologyArchaeologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The disturbance history of six mature white oak (Quercus alba L.) – northern red oak (Quercus rubra L.) – hickory (Carya spp.) stands in the Ozark Mountains of northern Arkansas were reconstructed using tree-ring and fire-scar analysis. Results indicate that all six stands originated in the early 1900s following timber harvesting and (or) fire. These disturbances initiated a pulse of oak-dominated establishment. Most sites were periodically burned during the next several decades. Abrupt radial growth increases in all stands during the 1920s to 1940s reflected additional disturbances. These perturbations likely provided growing space for existing trees, but did not result in increased seedling establishment. Thus, multiple disturbances were important in the origin and development of the stands studied. By the 1930s and 1940s, oak establishment was replaced by shade-tolerant, fire-intolerant non-oak species; few oak recruited into tree size classes after the 1950s. The decrease in oaks and the increase in non-oaks coincided with fire suppression. Few scars were recorded during the past 60–70 years. Prescribed fire may be an important management tool in regenerating oak forests in northern Arkansas.

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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations35
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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