MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2189125094

TREE SAPLING AND SHRUB HEIGHTS AFTER 25 YEARS OF LIVESTOCK GRAZING IN GREEN ASH DRAWS IN WESTERN NORTH DAKOTA

2009· article· en· W2189125094 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel W. Uresk, Jody Javersak, Daryl E. Mergen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivestockShrubGrazingWoodlandGeographyForestryWildlifeAgroforestryAgronomyBiologyEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stem heights of green ash and American elm saplings and five shrub species were measured over 25 years with two treatments, 1) livestock present and 2) livestock excluded from woodland draws in western North Dakota. Heights of green ash and American elm saplings and Saskatoon serviceberry, spiny current, and western snowberry increased when livestock were excluded. Common chokecherry was taller throughout the 25-year period on the grazed treatment. Wood’s rose was the exception and decreased overall under both treatments, but was generally taller on the ungrazed treatment. Significant differences in stem heights were observed between treatments within 3-4 years after livestock were excluded; wildlife could graze both treatments. All American elm saplings died within livestock grazed sites during the study, but heights increased 22% over this period when livestock were excluded. Green ash saplings experienced a growth rate five times greater when cattle were excluded. Saskatoon serviceberry and common chokecherry experienced stem growth rates 2-5 times greater, respectively, when livestock were excluded.

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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science→Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→