MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146311168 · doi:10.1139/f02-026

Perspectives on the age and distribution of large wood in riparian carbon pools

2002· article· en· W2146311168 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Richard P. Guyette, William G. Cole, Daniel C. Dey, Rose‐Marie Muzika

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsRiparian zoneTerrestrial ecosystemEnvironmental scienceCoarse woody debrisEcosystemRiparian forestAquatic ecosystemEcologyHydrology (agriculture)Terrestrial plantHabitatBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most knowledge of carbon budgets is derived from the productivity and sequestration of carbon in terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Less is known of carbon stored in riparian areas associated with lakes and rivers. Case studies of the age distribution of carbon in aquatic large wood (C lw ) from two different landscapes with different drainage patterns were established using tree-ring and 14 C dating. Cumulative negative exponential distributions of the age of C lw ranged over periods from 1000 to 9485 years. Large woody debris had mean residence times of 261 years in small oligotrophic lakes and 350–800 years in a stream reach. Large wood can reside for an order of magnitude longer in freshwater–riparian ecosystems than in comparable above-ground terrestrial ecosystems. Although riparian areas make up only a small fraction of most landscapes, they may account for a relatively larger proportion of aged C lw than is stored above ground in terrestrial ecosystems.

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)0.000
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations63
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207