MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123191979 · doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2009.03.008

Holocene fire and vegetation dynamics in a montane forest, North Cascade Range, Washington, USA

2009· article· en· W2123191979 on OpenAlexaff
Susan J. Prichard, Ze’ev Gedalof, W. Wyatt Oswald, David L. Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueQuaternary Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacrofossilHolocenePinus contortaWoodlandVegetation (pathology)GeologyPhysical geographyFire regimeEcologyGeographyOceanographyEcosystemBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We reconstructed a 10,500-yr fire and vegetation history of a montane site in the North Cascade Range, Washington State based on lake sediment charcoal, macrofossil and pollen records. High-resolution sampling and abundant macrofossils made it possible to analyze relationships between fire and vegetation. During the early Holocene (> 10,500 to ca. 8000 cal yr BP) forests were subalpine woodlands dominated by Pinus contorta . Around 8000 cal yr BP, P. contorta sharply declined in the macrofossil record. Shade tolerant, mesic species first appeared ca. 4500 cal yr BP. Cupressus nootkatensis appeared most recently at 2000 cal yr BP. Fire frequency varies throughout the record, with significantly shorter mean fire return intervals in the early Holocene than the mid and late Holocene. Charcoal peaks are significantly correlated with an initial increase in macrofossil accumulation rates followed by a decrease, likely corresponding to tree mortality following fire. Climate appears to be a key driver in vegetation and fire regimes over millennial time scales. Fire and other disturbances altered forest vegetation at shorter time scales, and vegetation may have mediated local fire regimes. For example, dominance of P. contorta in the early Holocene forests may have been reinforced by its susceptibility to frequent, stand-replacing fire events.

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)0.001
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 score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.292
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations33
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuaternary ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207