MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124998467 · doi:10.1139/x03-168

Temporal changes of forest net primary production and net ecosystem production in west central Canada associated with natural and anthropogenic disturbances

2003· article· en· W2124998467 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Zhong Li, Michael J. Apps, Werner A. Kurz, Ed Banfield

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary productionEcosystemEnvironmental scienceForest ecologyForestryEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temporal variations of net primary production (NPP) and net ecosystem production (NEP) in west central Canadian forests over the period of 1920–1995 and their responses to natural and anthropogenic disturbances were simulated using the Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS2). The results show that forest NPP in the region was 215 g C·year–1·m–2 in 1920, varied between 105 and 317 g·C year–1·m–2 depending on ecoclimatic province, but gradually increased to 330 (158 to 395) g C·year–1·m–2 in the early 1980s before declining to 290 (148 to 395) g C·year–1·m–2 by 1995. Forest NEP was estimated to be 53 (–13 to 88) g C·year–1·m–2 in 1920–1924, increased to 75 (5 to 98) g C·year–1·m–2 in 1960, and then declined to 26 (–14 to 53) g C·year–1·m–2 in 1991–1995. Natural disturbances played a greater role than harvest in determining the temporal pattern of forest NPP and NEP during the period because of the larger area affected by natural disturbances. This study also indicated that ignoring disturbances would lead to an overestimation of forest NPP and NEP in ecosystem modeling.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations41
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207