Effects of Contemporary Winter Seismic Exploration on Low Arctic Plant Communities and Permafrost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied effects of oil and gas exploration, using the most recent seismic exploration technologies, on tundra plant communities and soils in four vegetation types in the Low Arctic of western Canada, two to three years post-disturbance. For all four vegetation types, seismic lines had less vascular plant cover and more bare ground than adjacent “reference” tundra. For the two upland tundra vegetation types, mosses and lichens were less abundant on seismic lines than in reference plots. There were no apparent differences in organic layer thickness between seismic lines and reference areas, but active layer depth (at the time of sampling) was significantly greater on seismic lines for the upland tundra and one of the wetland vegetation types. Diversity and richness were lower, and community composition was different, on seismic lines (as compared to reference plots) in upland tundra vegetation types but not in wetland types. The results suggest that (1) upland vegetation types are less resistant to seismic disturbance, (2) active layer depth increases following seismic disturbance, and (3) impacts from modern seismic techniques in upland tundra are similar to, or somewhat greater than, the initial impacts observed from the earliest phases of winter exploration ∼30 years ago.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".