MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122327500 · doi:10.1139/x03-124

Spatial variability of aboveground net primary production for a forested landscape in northern Wisconsin

2003· article· en· W2122327500 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S. N. Burrows, Stith T. Gower, John M. Norman, George R. Diak, D. S. Mackay, Douglas E. Ahl, Murray K. Clayton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPrimary productionEnvironmental scienceUnderstoryVegetation (pathology)WetlandForestryLand coverVegetation typePhysical geographyEcologyEcosystemGrasslandLand useCanopyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantifying forest net primary production (NPP) is critical to understanding the global carbon cycle because forests are responsible for a large portion of the total terrestrial NPP. The objectives of this study were to measure above ground NPP (NPP A ) for a land surface in northern Wisconsin, examine the spatial patterns of NPP A and its components, and correlate NPP A with vegetation cover types and leaf area index. Mean NPP A for aspen, hardwoods, mixed forest, upland conifers, nonforested wetlands, and forested wetlands was 7.8, 7.2, 5.7, 4.9, 5.0, and 4.5 t dry mass·ha –1 ·year –1 , respectively. There were significant (p = 0.01) spatial patterns in wood, foliage, and understory NPP components and NPP A (p = 0.03) when the vegetation cover type was included in the model. The spatial range estimates for the three NPP components and NPP A differed significantly from each other, suggesting that different factors are influencing the components of NPP. NPP A was significantly correlated with leaf area index (p = 0.01) for the major vegetation cover types. The mean NPP A for the 3 km × 2 km site was 5.8 t dry mass·ha –1 ·year –1 .

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations40
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207