MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285523382 · doi:10.1111/ele.12574

Demographic controls of aboveground forest biomass across North America

2016· article· en· W2285523382 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark C. Vanderwel, Hongcheng Zeng, John P. Caspersen, Georges Künstler, Jeremy W. Lichstein

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Regina
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)EcologyAbies balsameaCompetition (biology)BiologySpatial variabilityPlant ecologySpatial ecologyBalsamBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecologists have limited understanding of how geographic variation in forest biomass arises from differences in growth and mortality at continental to global scales. Using forest inventories from across North America, we partitioned continental-scale variation in biomass growth and mortality rates of 49 tree species groups into (1) species-independent spatial effects and (2) inherent differences in demographic performance among species. Spatial factors that were separable from species composition explained 83% and 51% of the respective variation in growth and mortality. Moderate additional variation in mortality (26%) was attributable to differences in species composition. Age-dependent biomass models showed that variation in forest biomass can be explained primarily by spatial gradients in growth that were unrelated to species composition. Species-dependent patterns of mortality explained additional variation in biomass, with forests supporting less biomass when dominated by species that are highly susceptible to competition (e.g. Populus spp.) or to biotic disturbances (e.g. Abies balsamea).

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207