MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149961178 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/045203

Fire impact on carbon storage in light conifer forests of the Lower Angara region, Siberia

2011· article· en· W2149961178 on OpenAlexaff
Г. А. Иванова, Susan G. Conard, Elena A. Kukavskaya, Douglas J. McRae

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersNanyang Technological University
KeywordsTaigaLarchEnvironmental scienceScots pineCarbon fibersBorealForestryAtmospheric sciencesIntensity (physics)Physical geographyEcologyPinus <genus>GeographyGeologyMaterials scienceBotanyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focused on structural analysis of ground carbon storage following fires in light conifer stands of the Lower Angara region (Siberia, Russia). Experimental fires of varying frontal intensity were conducted at Scots pine and mixed larch forests of southern taiga. Considerable amounts of surface and ground forest fuels (21–38 tC ha − 1 ) enhanced low- to high-intensity fires. Post-fire carbon storage decreased by 16–49% depending on fire intensity and rate of spread, with depth of burn being 0.9–6.6 cm. Carbon emissions varied from 4.48 to 15.89 t ha − 1 depending on fire intensity and forest type. Depth of burn and carbon emissions for four major site types were correlated with a weather-based fire hazard index.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations40
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207