MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2532773380 · doi:10.5558/tfc2016-058

The influence of tree species on carbon storage in northern China

2016· article· en· W2532773380 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guopeng Chen, Huitao Shen, Jiansheng Cao, Wanjun Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Hebei ProvinceChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsAfforestationReforestationCarbon sequestrationBiomass (ecology)Carbon fibersPinus tabulaeformisEnvironmental scienceForestryAgroforestryLarix gmeliniiChinaSowingBotanyAgronomyEcologyBiologyGeographyCarbon dioxideMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selection of tree species is an important management decision for increasing carbon storage in regional planting programs in China. This study quantifies above and belowground carbon storage by several species in the Desertification Combating Program around Beijing and Tianjin (DCBT). Results show that the total carbon storage of the Pinus davidiana plantation was significantly higher than that of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica but not significantly differ from plantations of Pinus tabulaeformis and Larix gmelinii var. principis-rupprechtii. Most of the carbon was in the aboveground biomass. These results suggest that tree species have substantial influences on carbon storage, and that species should be considered in improving carbon sequestration potential for afforestation/reforestation projects.

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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry Chronicle→Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→