MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165259213 · doi:10.5558/tfc79247-2

Decay of Picea abies snag stands on steep mountain slopes

2003· article· en· W2165259213 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrea D. Kupferschmid, Peter Brang, Walter Schönenberger, Harald Bugmann

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsSnagCoarse woody debrisPicea abiesBark beetleTransectForestryBark (sound)RockfallGeologyDebrisButtressEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)GeographyGeomorphologyEcologyLandslideArchaeologyBiologyHabitatGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a 30-ha Picea abies mountain forest in the Swiss Alps, almost all trees were killed by bark beetles (Ips typographus) between 1992 and 1996. Snag decay was studied using full-callipering within transects, and the height of lying logs above ground level was studied using the line intersect method. None of the dead trees had been uprooted, but 75% were found broken in 2000. The probability of snag breakage was independent of both tree diameter and time since stand death, but 28% of the snags broke close to the ground during a storm in December 1999. The log sections that were not in direct contact with the ground (73% of the log length sampled) were on average 85 cm above the soil surface in 2001. The orientation of the logs could be explained with the prevailing wind direction even on this steep slope. Leaving snag stands unharvested in P. abies forests on such slopes is likely to result in effective protection against rockfall and avalanche release for about 30 years. Key words: Norway spruce, bark beetle, decay process, rockfall, avalanche, mountain forest, Switzerland, decomposition, coarse woody debris

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 score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations47
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207