MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116904099 · doi:10.1139/x06-027

Native American influences on the forest composition of the Allegheny Plateau, northwest Pennsylvania

2006· article· en· W2116904099 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bryan A. Black, Charles M. Ruffner, Marc D. Abrams

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsBeechGeographyFagaceaeDominance (genetics)ForestryDeciduousEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We integrate witness tree distribution, Native American archaeological sites, and geological and topographic variables to investigate the relationships between Native American populations and pre-European settlement forest types on the Allegheny Plateau, northwest Pennsylvania. Detrended correspondence analysis of witness tree data separated the presettlement forests into oak–hickory–chestnut and beech–hemlock–maple communities. Oak, hickory, and chestnut forests were centered on Native American village sites. Using archaeological data, an index of Native American influence (NAI) was derived to reflect the intensity of Native American land use across the landscape. In a comparison among species, mean NAI value of oak, hickory, and chestnut trees was significantly higher than that of beech, maple, and hemlock. Logistic regression demonstrated that among geology type, landform, elevation, aspect, slope, and NAI, NAI was by far the most significant predictor of oak, hickory, and chestnut distribution. Although cause and effect of this relationship cannot be tested, we suggest that long-term Native American activity selected for the disturbance-adapted oak, hickory, and chestnut. We contend that Native American agriculture, burning, and resource extraction could have converted maple–beech–hemlock to oak–hickory–chestnut, or at least reinforced the dominance of this forest type.

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 score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations97
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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