MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2513296866

Red spruce forest regeneration dynamics across a gradient from Acadian forest to old field in Greenwich, Prince

2009· article· en· W2513296866 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Canada L. Vasseur

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShrubReforestationGreenwichAbundance (ecology)EcologyForest dynamicsGeographySpecies diversityLoggingForestryAgroforestryBiologyEnvironmental science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Red spruce forests have declined consid- erably throughout their range in the past decades. As agricultural fields are abandoned and land becomes available for reforestation, the possibility arises for red spruce forests to expand onto them. This study addresses the potential for red spruce forests to expand onto adjacent old fields in Greenwich, Prince Edward Island National Park, Canada. We examined red spruce distribution and abundance, plant species diversity and changes in community composition along a gradient from the interior of red spruce forests out towards the centre of adjacent old fields. Examining the patterns of red spruce distribution and abundance revealed that, where cultivation and logging have been abandoned recently in the fields and forests, regeneration is limited to the forest stands, but in the sites with older fields and forests, regeneration extends into and is more vigorous in the fields. Although species diversity varied from forest to field only for the tree and shrub layers, important changes occurred in the ground species composition. There is no evidence yet that the herbaceous 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 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 score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.928

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies→French-language works237,207→