MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130997100 · doi:10.1029/2004gb002316

Effect of thinning on surface fluxes in a boreal forest

2005· article· en· W2130997100 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Biogeochemical Cycles · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersAcademy of Finland
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesThinningTranspirationLeaf area indexTaigaBorealSink (geography)Hydrology (agriculture)CanopySoil scienceEcologyPhotosynthesisBotanyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thinning is a routine forest management operation that changes tree spacing, number, and size distribution and affects the material flows between vegetation and the atmosphere. Here, using direct micrometeorological ecosystem‐scale measurements, we show that in a boreal pine forest, thinning decreases the deposition velocities of fine particles as expected but does not reduce the carbon sink, water vapor flux, or ozone deposition. The thinning decreased the all‐sided leaf area index from 8 to 6, and we suggest that the redistribution of sources and sinks within the ecosystem compensated for this reduction in foliage area. In the case of water vapor and O 3 , changes in light penetration and among‐tree competition seem to increase individual transpiration rates and lead to larger stomatal apertures, thus enhancing also O 3 deposition. In the case of CO 2 , increased ground vegetation assimilation and decreased autotrophic respiration seem to cancel out opposite changes in canopy assimilation and heterotrophic respiration. Current soil‐vegetation‐atmosphere transfer models should be able to reproduce these observations.

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)0.000
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 score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.216 · 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