MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182039506 · doi:10.2980/21-(3-4)-3690

Chemical quality of aboveground litter inputs for jack pine and black spruce stands along the Canadian Boreal Forest Transect Case Study

2014· article· en· W2182039506 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Caroline M. Preston, Jagtar S. Bhatti, Charlotte E. Norris

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sport Centre PacificAlberta Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack spruceTransectTaigaBorealEnvironmental scienceLitterJack pineForestryEcologyPinus <genus>GeographyBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Canadian boreal forest, jack pine stands generally have a thin forest floor and occupy sites with coarsetextured soils and good drainage. Black spruce occurs more often on poorly drained sites and develops a thick mossdominated forest floor, but the common attribution of this development to poor quality of black spruce foliar litter has not been tested. We determined needle, twig, cone, and bark litter inputs during 10 y for black spruce and jack pine along the Boreal Forest Transect Case Study in northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Analysis of C, N, total phenolics, condensed tannins, and solid-state 13C NMR spectra from years 1–3 showed only small differences between species, notably higher tannins in black spruce cones. There was similarly little difference between area-based inputs, including classes of C structures determined by NMR. Condensed tannin input for black spruce was approximately twice that for jack pine, but both were in the very low range of reported values. Similar analyses showed that black spruce forest floor was less decomposed than that of jack pine, and for both species, aromatic litter C inputs appear to be poorly conserved, with a large influence of mosses and lichen. It is unlikely, however, that these large differences are mainly due to the small differences in aboveground litter inputs.

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 score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.264
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 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207