MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113704636 · doi:10.1139/x03-019

Growth rate predicts mortality of <i>Abies concolor</i> in both burned and unburned stands

2003· article· en· W2113704636 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Phillip J. van Mantgem, Nathan L. Stephenson, Linda S. Mutch, Veronica G. Johnson, Annie Esperanza, David Parsons

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrown (dentistry)Disturbance (geology)Mortality rateForestryDemographyBiologyEcologyGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tree mortality is often the result of both long-term and short-term stress. Growth rate, an indicator of long-term stress, is often used to estimate probability of death in unburned stands. In contrast, probability of death in burned stands is modeled as a function of short-term disturbance severity. We sought to narrow this conceptual gap by determining (i) whether growth rate, in addition to crown scorch, is a predictor of mortality in burned stands and (ii) whether a single, simple model could predict tree death in both burned and unburned stands. Observations of 2622 unburned and 688 burned Abies concolor (Gord. &amp; Glend.) Lindl. (white fir) in the Sierra Nevada of California, U.S.A., indicated that growth rate was a significant predictor of mortality in the unburned stands, while both crown scorch and radial growth were significant predictors of mortality in the burned stands. Applying the burned stand model to unburned stands resulted in an overestimation of the unburned stand mortality rate. While failing to create a general model of tree death for A. concolor, our findings underscore the idea that similar processes may affect mortality in disturbed and undisturbed stands.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations80
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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