MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117373695 · doi:10.1139/x03-033

A chronosequence of wood decomposition in the boreal forests of Russia

2003· article· en· W2117373695 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mikhail Yatskov, Mark E. Harmon, Olga N. Krankina

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPinus koraiensisSnagLarix gmeliniiChronosequencePicea abiesTaigaLarchBotanyBorealCoarse woody debrisDecompositionForestryPinus <genus>Betula pendulaHorticultureEnvironmental scienceBiologyEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coarse woody debris (CWD), represented by logs and snags &gt;10 cm in diameter and &gt;1 m in length, was sampled at eight sites in Russian boreal forests to determine the specific density of decay classes and decomposition rates. Tree species sampled included Abies siberica Ledeb., Betula pendula Roth., Betula costata Trautv., Larix siberica Ledeb., Larix dahurica Turcz., Picea abies (L.) Karst., Picea obovata Ledeb., Picea ajanensis Fisch., Pinus koraiensis Sieb. et Zucc., Pinus siberica Ledeb., Pinus sylvestris L., and Populus tremula L. The mean densities for decay clas ses 1 through 5 ranged from 0.516 to 0.084 g·cm –3 , respectively. Annual decomposition rates varied among the species, and for logs, decomposition rates ranged from 4.2 to 7.8% for B. pendula, 2.6 to 4.9% for Picea spp., 2.7 to 4.4% for Pinus sylvestris, 1.5 to 3.1% for Larix spp., and 1.5 to 1.9% for Pinus koraiensis and Pinus siberica. Logs decomposed faster than snags. Among the sites examined, temperature and precipitation did not correlate with decomposition rates, which is consistent with other studies in the boreal region. Globally, a positive correlation between decomposition and mean annual temperatures was found, with decay-resistant trees less responsive than those with low decay resistance.

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 score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations239
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207