MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139307455 · doi:10.1139/x05-120

Impacts of drought on forest growth and regeneration following fire in southwestern Yukon, Canada

2005· article· en· W2139307455 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Edward H. Hogg, Ross W. Wein

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsRegeneration (biology)PrecipitationGrasslandForestryDendrochronologyClimate changeEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The valleys of southwestern Yukon have a continental climate with average annual precipitation of <300 mm. In 1958, fires burned large areas of mature mixedwood forests dominated by white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) in the valleys near Whitehorse. Since then, the burned areas have shown poor regeneration of spruce, but have been colonized by scattered clones of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) interspersed by grassland. The objective of the study was to examine the influence of climatic variation on forest growth and regeneration in the 1958 burn and the adjacent unburned forests. Tree-ring analysis was conducted on 50 aspen and 54 white spruce in 12 mature stands where these species were codominant, and on 147 regenerating aspen in the 1958 Takhini burn. The mature stands were uneven-aged and the patterns of growth variation for the aspen and spruce between 1944 and 2000 were similar. Growth of both species was most strongly related to variation in precipitation. The regenerating aspen had a wide age-class distribution (1959–2000) and their growth was also positively related to precipitation. The results indicate that these forests have been slow to regenerate after fire, and are vulnerable if the climate becomes drier under future global change.

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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations108
Published2005
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207