MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167799439 · doi:10.14430/arctic4144

Radial-Growth Response of Forest-Tundra Trees to Climate in the Western Hudson Bay Lowlands

2011· article· en· W2167799439 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Steven D. Mamet, G. Peter Kershaw

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTundraBayEcotoneTransectTaigaPhysical geographyClimate changeVolcanoLatitudeClimatologyEnvironmental scienceDendroclimatologyDendrochronologyGeographyForestryEcologyOceanographyGeologyArcticBiologyShrub

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of climate on radial growth of Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch, Picea glauca (Moench) Voss, and Picea mariana (Mill) BSP were investigated in the Hudson Bay Lowlands of northern Manitoba. The objective was to characterize spatial and temporal variations in growth of trees across the forest-tundra ecotone. Along a 250 km transect, 299 trees were sampled in three zones: northern forest, central tundra, and southern forest. Ring-width indices were compared with climate through correlation- and response-function analyses. Numerous years of suppressed growth at the three locales resulted from cooling that followed major volcanic eruptions at much lower latitudes. Temperatures during July of the current year and autumn of the previous year were most limiting, particularly for L. laricina, which was temperature-sensitive across the region. A weakened growth response to temperature during the 1940–60 period was likely due to atmospheric circulation shifts. Most chronologies were intercorrelated, which suggests common environmental forcing, though environmental influences differed in the southern forest (particularly for P. mariana). The source of this disparity has yet to be determined.

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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207