MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Arctic alpine vegetation change over 20 years

2009· article· en· W2136693989 on OpenAlexaff
Scott D. Wilson, Christer Nilsson

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecies richnessShrubVegetation (pathology)ForbGrowing seasonArctic vegetationEcologyHerbaceous plantArcticClimate changeEnvironmental scienceTundraBiologyGrassland

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent arctic warming experiments have recorded significant vegetation responses, typically an increase in shrub cover and a loss of species richness. We report similar changes in vegetation along an arctic mountainside in northern Sweden over 20 years. During this time mean annual temperature increased by 2.0 °C, and growing season temperature by 2.3 °C. Growing season length increased by 28% at the bottom of our study area, in birch forest, and by 175% on the mountaintop. Neither total vegetation cover nor the cover of bare ground changed. One common dwarf shrub, Empetrum hermaphroditum, and two common forbs, Viola biflora and Geranium sylvaticum, increased in abundance over time, but no common species moved up the gradient. Species richness declined significantly over time, with an average loss of two species per 50 cm × 100 cm plot. The richness of herbaceous species at intermediate altitudes decreased significantly with increasing shrub cover. In spite of large changes in temperature, the type and magnitude of vegetation change along this mountainside were relatively modest and consistent with those from wide‐spread warming experiments.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations169
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Change BiologySame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207