MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling ice storm damage to a mature, mixed-species hardwood forest in eastern Ontario

2001· article· en· W2540614601 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jason Jones, Jason Pither, Ryan D. DeBruyn, Raleigh J. Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsDeciduousEcological successionCanopyEcologySpecies evennessDisturbance (geology)GeographyTree canopyStormForestryEnvironmental scienceBiologySpecies diversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In January 1998, the worst ice storm of the last century hit regions of southeastern Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick, and the northeastern United States. Using standard multiple regression and classification tree models, we examined the ice damage suffered by trees in a mature, deciduous forest in eastern Ontario at two scales: plot (5 m radius) and individual tree. Canopy trees were damaged significantly more than mid-story trees and there were significant differences among tree species in damage susceptibility. At the plot scale, the best predictors of damage were average tree size and plot species evenness. Plots dominated by large trees were damaged more than those dominated by small trees and plots with higher species evenness suffered higher levels of damage than did less even plots. Models incorporating damage to neighbouring plots explained more variance than did models without the neighbour information. At the individual tree scale, damage suffered by the dominant canopy tree species, sugar maple, was best predicted by tree size. Damage suffered by the dominant mid-story tree species, ironwood, was best predicted by neighbour information and tree size. Disturbances that differentially affect canopy and mid-story layers have been shown to accelerate forest succession by creating light gaps. However, given the species composition and structure of our study forest, we feel that this disturbance will not overly influence forest succession in mature, deciduous forests in eastern Ontario.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2001
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207