MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Response of soil surface CO<sub>2</sub> flux in a boreal forest to ecosystem warming

2007· article· en· W2124100278 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil and Unsaturated Flow
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersManitoba HydroU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceBlack spruceSoil carbonFlux (metallurgy)TaigaUnderstoryGlobal warmingCarbon dioxideSoil waterSoil scienceClimate changeChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Soil surface carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) flux ( R S ) was measured for 2 years at the Boreal Soil and Air Warming Experiment site near Thompson, MB, Canada. The experimental design was a complete random block design that consisted of four replicate blocks, with each block containing a 15 m × 15 m control and heated plot. Black spruce [ Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP] was the overstory species and Epilobium angustifolium was the dominant understory. Soil temperature was maintained (∼5 °C) above the control soil temperature using electric cables inside water filled polyethylene tubing for each heated plot. Air inside a 7.3‐m‐diameter chamber, centered in the soil warming plot, contained approximately nine black spruce trees was heated ∼5 °C above control ambient air temperature allowing for the testing of soil‐only warming and soil+air warming. Soil surface CO 2 flux ( R S ) was positively correlated ( P &lt; 0.0001) to soil temperature at 10 cm depth. Soil surface CO 2 flux ( R S ) was 24% greater in the soil‐only warming than the control in 2004, but was only 11% greater in 2005, while R S in the soil+air warming treatments was 31% less than the control in 2004 and 23% less in 2005. Live fine root mass (&lt; 2 mm diameter) was less in the heated than control treatments in 2004 and statistically less ( P &lt; 0.01) in 2005. Similar root mass between the two heated treatments suggests that different heating methods (soil‐only vs. soil+air warming) can affect the rate of decomposition.

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.

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 score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.233 · 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