MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2253492594 · doi:10.14288/1.0042623

Establishment of a trial to test direct seeding of lodgepole pine for reclamation on Gibraltar Mine properties, British Columbia

2012· article· en· W2253492594 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Becky Bravi, Bill Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand reclamationSeedingEnvironmental scienceForestryTest (biology)GeographyArchaeologyEcologyAgronomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent work with lodgepole pine has demonstrated that with the correct symbiotic partners, it can fix nitrogen which helps explain its pioneering nature. Current reclamation of disturbed sites to conifers employs the use of container stock and is not wholly successful. Problems with using nursery stock include seedling shock from harsh conditions associated with mine spoils and pre-colonization of seedlings by symbionts found in, and adapted to nursery conditions. Historically, direct seeding of pine in forestry in British Columbia putatively failed because of seed predation and desiccation. These challenges may be manageable and/or may not be important in reclamation work. In the fall of 2011, a modified direct seeding trial using lodgepole pine was established on a rock dump covered with ½ meter of fine textured overburden at Gibraltar Mines in McLeese Lake, BC. Pinus contorta var. latifolia seed collected from the Gibraltar property had a laboratory germination success rate of 99% and was used to plant the 3 hectare trial. The site was mostly planted to bare seed with 4 14m x14m sub-plots planted to various combinations of seed and symbionts. The theory, methods employed and experimental design of this trial and some of the challenges encountered are described.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207