MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2318844957 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2012-0438

Alterations in litter decomposition patterns in tropical montane forests of Colombia: a comparison of oak forests and coniferous plantations

2013· article· en· W2318844957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juan Carlos Loaiza‐Usuga, Juan Diego León Peláez, María I. González-Hernández, Juan F. Gallardo, Walter Osório-Vega, Guillermo Antonio Correa Londoño

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad Nacional de Colombia
KeywordsLitterEnvironmental scienceNutrient cycleNutrientAkaike information criterionPlant litterEcosystemEcologyCyclingMontane ecologyForestryCarbon cycleAtmospheric sciencesBiologyMathematicsGeographyStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the alterations in litter decay patterns that follow changes in land use in tropical montane forests is essential for comprehending carbon, energy, and nutrient dynamics in this understudied ecosystem. The main objective of this study was to determine the changes in organic matter, carbon return, and nutrient cycling when oak forests are replaced by coniferous plantations in tropical montane forests. Five litter decay models (single, double, and triple pool exponential, gamma pk, log-uniform pk) were used to fit litter mass loss data over time. Although all models properly fitted the data, the triple pool exponential model was chosen because all parameters (coefficient of determination (R2), mean square of error (MSE), and Akaike information criterion (AIC)) were statistically the most adequate. Results indicated that litter of coniferous species decomposes more slowly than oak litter material, thus slowing the nutrient cycling. In this study, lignin content, C:N ratio, and N:P ratio were poor predictors of litter decomposition.

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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies→French-language works237,207→