MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166668223 · doi:10.1139/x03-279

Forest structure and composition at young fire and cut edges in black spruce boreal forest

2004· article· en· W2166668223 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Karen A. Harper, Daniel Lesieur, Yves Bergeron, Pierre Drapeau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorthwestern University
KeywordsBlack spruceSnagTaigaUnderstoryTransectBorealForestryForest structureEcologyMossEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyCanopyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared structure and composition at forest edges created by wildfire and clear-cutting in black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) dominated boreal forest in northwestern Quebec. Forest structure and plant species composition were sampled along transects perpendicular to eight 3- to 4-year-old fire edges and eight 2- to 5-year-old cut edges. Significance of edge influence was assessed by comparing mean values at different distances from the edge to the range of variation in interior forest. The influence of clearcut edges was minimal, generally extending only 5 m from the edge, and included greater log density and different species composition, compared with interior forest. At fire edges, prominent responses to edge creation included increased snag density and lower moss cover, compared with interior forest, extending up to 40 m into the forest. This initial structural change was likely due to partial burning extending into the forest. Overall, fire edges had more snags and a different species composition than cut edges. Our hypothesis that edge influence is more extensive at fire edges than at cut edges was supported for overstory and understory structure, but not for species composition. We suggest that there is a need for management to consider the cumulative effect of the loss of fire edges on the landscape.

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 score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations67
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207