MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297434678 · doi:10.1080/11956860.2015.1107262

Shrub densification heterogeneity in subarctic regions: the relative influence of historical and topographic variables

2015· article· en· W2297434678 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Pascale Ropars, Esther Lévesque, Stéphane Boudreau

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité LavalCenter for Northern Studies
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSubarctic climateShrubEcologyPhysical geographyGeographyGeologyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Expansion of shrub species is widely reported in northern regions, although its extent varies across the landscape. In subarctic Québec (Canada), where dwarf birch (Betula glandulosa Michx) is the main species responsible for shrub expansion, little is known about the causes and consequences of this phenomenon. This study aims to identify the drivers of dwarf birch densification heterogeneity at the landscape level and to evaluate its influence on other shrub species. We used model selection with Akaike’s information criterion to rank ecologically relevant models including topographic, historical and edaphic variables. The influence of dwarf birch densification was evaluated through regression analysis. We found that the best model explaining the heterogeneity in dwarf birch densification in western Nunavik includes factors related to both historical conditions (initial shrub cover, time elapsed since last wildfire) and topography (type of environment). Among these factors, only the initial shrub cover had a significant positive influence on the shrub densification. Increase in dwarf birch cover was found to negatively influence the cover of other shrub species. However, no relation was found between dwarf birch densification and other shrub species richness, suggesting that the densification did not yet lead to the exclusion of less competitive species.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicClimate change and permafrostFrench-language works237,207