MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138306301 · doi:10.1139/x03-271

Modeling dead wood in Fennoscandian old-growth forests dominated by Norway spruce

2004· article· en· W2138306301 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas Ranius, Bengt Gunnar Jonsson, Nicholas Kruys

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSvenska Forskningsrådet Formas
KeywordsCoarse woody debrisPicea abiesSnagKarstForestryEnvironmental scienceForest inventoryResidence time (fluid dynamics)EcologyDead woodAtmospheric sciencesPhysical geographyGeographyForest managementBiologyGeologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If equilibrium is assumed in unmanaged forests, the volume of coarse woody debris (CWD), VCWD, may be calculated from (i) the volume of living trees, Vliving, (ii) average volume of a dead stem in relation to when it was alive, k, (iii) tree mortality rate, m, and (iv) residence time of CWD, t, by the equation VCWD = Vlivingkmt. We parameterized this equation with data from Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) dominated forests in Fennoscandia. The Vliving was assumed to be directly proportional to forest productivity. Tree mortality data were from the National Forest Inventory, while it was difficult to find quantitative data on k and t. The predicted amounts (74–138 m3/ha, with larger amounts in the south) and size distribution (a negative exponential distribution of the number of stems) of CWD corresponded fairly well to averages from field inventories. By using a computer simulation program, the variability in tree mortality, density of living trees, and residence time of CWD were considered. In the simulations, the amount of CWD varied widely between 1-ha plots, especially for individual decay classes. Therefore, this model could be used to predict averages from larger landscapes unaffected by large disturbances, while no model can predict the amount of CWD at individual plots.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations51
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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