MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2162029017 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2012-0333

A tree-community-level analysis of successional status and gap-phase and postfire regeneration of range-margin<i>Thuja plicata</i>(western redcedar)

2013· article· en· W2162029017 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David A. McKenzie, Daniel B. Tinker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Wyoming
KeywordsTsugaThujaWestern HemlockUnderstoryEcologyRange (aeronautics)BiologyEcological successionCanopySeral communityGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Range-margin populations may have different life history characteristics than other populations, and the montane forests of Glacier National Park represent the easternmost limit of several western conifer species including Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don (western redcedar) and Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. (western hemlock). Understanding regeneration strategies of range-margin populations is important for predicting species distribution shifts. We identify successional status, seedling substrate preferences, and the degree to which different species establish within canopy gaps and the forest matrix. Thuja plicata and Tsuga heterophylla were each found to comprise at least 35% of all tree size classes, with six other species each contributing less than 6%. Similarly, other species each comprised less than 5% of canopy gap and understory seedlings. Thuja plicata is typically thought of as a late-successional species but it, along with Tsuga heterophylla, dominated stands during all stages of successional development. Similarly, they dominated both closed forest and gap establishment sites on all rooting substrates but preferred wood for establishment. Even with the likelihood of increased fire frequency, these range-margin populations likely have the capacity to maintain their current distributions. As disturbance regimes are modified across landscapes, it may be possible to observe the potential to adapt to local conditions in other range-margin populations.

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 score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→