MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2400401978 · doi:10.14288/1.0075581

Forest management and carbon storage in British Columbia

2014· article· en· W2400401978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuanyuan Xu

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest ecosystems play a significant role in the global carbon cycle. Through the process of photosynthesis, live trees are able to sequester carbon from the atmosphere and store it in biomass and soil, which helps to ease climate change. Besides above ground woody biomass, forest soil is another critical part of carbon storage; about 58% of the carbon in a forest stand is stored in soil. With disturbance (e.g., harvesting, fire, insects infection), forests release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, converting forests from a net carbon sink to a carbon source. Forest management activities can either increase or decrease the carbon storage of forests. In general, reducing the harvest level, extending rotation intervals and replacing clear cutting harvest systems will reduce carbon emissions during and post disturbance. Protecting forests from fire and insects infection also significantly contributes to carbon sequestration and help reducing carbon emissions. The outbreak of mountain pine beetle is the main factor that converted BC from a carbon sink to a carbon source since 2003. Thus, addressing effective solutions to control the mountain pine beetle population is critical for carbon recovery in BC province.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.149
Teacher spread0.145 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicForest Management and Policy→French-language works237,207→