MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127526807 · doi:10.1139/x06-149

Quantity and decay stages of coarse woody debris in old-growth subalpine spruce forests of the western Carpathians, Poland

2006· article· en· W2127526807 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tomasz Zielonka

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnagCoarse woody debrisDead treeForestryWoody plantDead woodMontane ecologyEnvironmental scienceVolume (thermodynamics)FellingPicea abiesGeographyEcologyBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The amount and decay stages of dead wood and the residence time of logs was studied in old-growth spruce-dominated stands in the Tatra and Babia Góra in the western Carpathian Mountains in Central Europe. The DBH of living trees and snags as well as the dimensions of logs (with a minimum diameter of 10 cm) were measured on nine sample plots with a pooled area of 4.3 ha. For the logs, the decay stage was identified according to an eight-level decay classification. Dendrochronological cross-dating was applied to 107 wood samples of logs to determine the time since death. The average volume of living trees was 454 m 3 /ha and the volume of coarse woody debris (CWD) averaged 191 m 3 /ha. The noted volume of CWD was higher than volumes reported from previous studies in the Carpathian Mountains. On average, CWD made up 30% of the total volume (living plus dead) and varied between 49% and 21% for the stands. The average age of logs for decay class 1 was 13 years and 24, 28, 38, 45, 38, and 60 years for decay classes 2–7, respectively. Considerable variation of time since death between decay classes was probably due to a variable time while dead trees remained standing as snags.

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 score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations62
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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