MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179901608 · doi:10.2980/i1195-6860-13-3-334.1

Microsite differentiation among conifer species during seedling establishment at alpine treeline

2006· article· en· W2179901608 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eliza L. Maher, Matthew J. Germino

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrositePicea engelmanniiAbies lasiocarpaSeedlingEcotoneEcologyEcological successionAlpine plantBiologyPioneer speciesShade tolerancePinus contortaBotanyHabitatCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

:Tree establishment is a potentially important factor affecting tree populations in alpine-treeline ecotones. Patterns of seedling establishment of Abies lasiocarpa, Pinus albicaulis, and Picea engelmannii were evaluated relative to neighbouring trees and herbs over two years and three treelines of the Rocky Mountains, USA. The greatest mortality rates were observed in seedlings that had just emerged from seed and were in their first year of growth and in seedlings that had the least amount of cover provided by trees or other landscape features that block exposure to the sky. Although herb cover promoted survivorship in microsites that were not near trees, no seedlings were detected at or above the upper limit of the treeline ecotone. Microsite tree cover was greatest for A. lasiocarpa and least for P. albicaulis seedlings, which matches predictions based on their relative photosynthetic tolerances to the bright sunlight and frequent frost that occur in exposed microsites. Interspecific differences in seedling requirements for neighbouring plant cover likely contribute to the apparent coexistence and possible interdependency of these conifers along a continuum of colonization and succession within treelines.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations131
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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