MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2335122634

Drought has emerged as a major threat to the world's forests. A study shows that tree mortality in Canada's boreal forests has increased by nearly 5% per year — much higher than expected — owing to water stress from regional warming.

2011· article· en· W2335122634 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard A. Birdsey, Yude Pan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaigaBorealEnvironmental scienceCarbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphereClimate changeCarbon dioxideGeographyForestryEcologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1found that annual mortality rates increased from less than 0.5% per year to values as high as 4.0% per year, with a significantly greater increase in Western Canada. This study and other recent reports of widespread droughtinduced tree mortality 2 suggest that the world may already be entering a new era of tree death and forest transformation — processes that will reduce the contribution of forests in removing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere. This could lead to further acceleration of the rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and potentially even more drought stress for forests. A recent analysis of inventory data of the world’s forests 3 revealed a significant increase in the mass of carbon accumulating in the dead wood of boreal forests, mainly because of tree mortality from insects and wildfires. The study by Peng and colleagues 1

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.199 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→