MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140690567 · doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.2.6

Forty Years of Vegetation Change on the Missouri River Floodplain

2012· article· en· W2140690567 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. Carter Johnson, Mark D. Dixon, Michael L. Scott, Lisa A. Rabbe, Gary L. Larson, Malia Volke, Brett Werner

Bibliographic record

VenueBioScience · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirectorate for Biological Sciences
KeywordsDominance (genetics)UnderstoryFloodplainEcosystemVegetation (pathology)Environmental scienceEcologyGeographyHydrology (agriculture)ForestryBiologyCanopyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparative inventories in 1969 and 1970 and in 2008 of vegetation from 30 forest stands downstream of Garrison Dam on the Missouri River in central North Dakota showed (a) a sharp decline in cottonwood regeneration; (b) a strong compositional shift toward dominance by green ash; and (c) large increases in invasive understory species, such as smooth brome, reed canary grass, and Canada thistle. These changes, and others discovered during remeasurement, have been caused by a complex of factors, some related to damming (altered hydrologic and sediment regimes, delta formation, and associated wet–dry cycles) and some not (diseases and expansion of invasive plants). Dominance of green ash, however, may be short lived, given the likelihood that the emerald ash borer will arrive in the Dakotas in 5–10 years, with potentially devastating effects. The prospects for recovery of this valuable ecosystem, rich in ecosystem goods and services and in American history, are daunting.

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)0.000
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations84
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioScienceSame topicHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesFrench-language works237,207