MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155354198 · doi:10.1139/x99-256

Coarse woody debris in the southeastern Canadian boreal forest: composition and load variations in relation to stand replacement

2000· article· en· W2155354198 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Christelle Hély, Yves Bergeron, Mike Flannigan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSnagCoarse woody debrisTaigaDebrisEnvironmental scienceCanopyBorealForestryEcological successionChronosequenceEcologyGeographyHabitatBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantities and structural characteristics of coarse woody debris (CWD) (logs and snags) were examined in relation to stand age and composition in the Canadian mixedwood boreal forest. Forty-eight stands originating after fire (from 32 to 236 years) were sampled on mesic clay deposits. The point-centered quadrant method was used to record canopy composition and structure (living trees and snags). The line-intersect method was used to sample logs of all diameters. Total log load, mean snag density, and volume per stand were similar to other boreal stands. Linear and nonlinear regressions showed that time since fire and canopy composition were significant descriptors for log load changes, whereas time since fire was the only significant factor for snag changes. Coarse woody debris accumulation models through time since fire were different from the U-shaped model because the first initial decrease from residual pre-disturbance debris was missing, the involved species had rapid decay rates with no long-term accumulation, and the succession occurred from species replacement through time.

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 score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations116
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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