MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167804906 · doi:10.1139/x01-182

Estimating net primary production of forests in the Canadian Prairie Provinces using an inventory-based carbon budget model

2002· article· en· W2167804906 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Zhong Li, Michael J. Apps, Ed Banfield, Werner A. Kurz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary productionEnvironmental scienceTaigaForest inventoryBiomass (ecology)ProductivityEcosystemCarbon sequestrationForestryForest ecologyBorealAtmospheric sciencesEcologyAgroforestryForest managementGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS2) is a forest inventory-based ecosystem simulation model. It has been used previously for both retrospective and projective analyses of the carbon pools and fluxes of the Canadian forest ecosystems at the national, regional, and stand level. The objective of this study was to determine and evaluate forest net primary production (NPP) in the three Prairie Provinces in west-central Canada, as estimated by the model. The model simulated an averaged aboveground NPP (NPPA) of 172 g C·m–2·year–1 for the regional forests, varying from 72 to 293 g C·m–2·year–1, depending on ecoclimatic province, forest type, age, and site productivity. Comparisons of NPPA estimates for the boreal forest (165–179 g C·m–2·year–1) with results from direct measurements, modeling, and empirical calculations show that the CBM-CFS2 produced reasonable estimates of NPPA. The model incorporates different types of disturbances such as wildfire, harvesting, and insects and is able to evaluate NPP changes with stand age. However, belowground NPP may be overestimated, especially for young and unproductive stands. This can be explained by the current parameter estimates for the fine-root component of belowground biomass and for fine-root turnover rates.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations31
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207