MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767078929 · doi:10.1111/avsc.12350

Plant recolonization of reclamation areas from patches of salvaged forest floor material

2017· article· en· W2767078929 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Vegetation Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPropagulePeatVegetation (pathology)Land reclamationEnvironmental scienceUnderstoryRevegetationBiological dispersalEcologyRuderal speciesSeed dispersalForest floorBiologyEcosystemHabitatCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Question Understorey development is a great challenge in the restoration of many forest sites, particularly when sources of vegetation propagules are scarce. Can placement of propagule‐rich soil patches within reclaimed landscapes otherwise covered with propagule‐poor material promote the dispersal of vegetation from the patches into the surrounding areas? Location Large reclamation site in the Canadian (Alberta) boreal forest. Method Patches of propagule‐rich forest floor material were placed within a matrix of propagule‐poor peat material. Vegetation assessments (cover estimates, seed rain) were done surrounding these patches in the third and fourth growing seasons. Results There was significant egress of species from the patches into the peat after four growing seasons, and overall species associated with the patches had higher cover in the peat than species that were associated with the peat itself. While wind‐dispersed herbaceous species from the patches were found at the leading edge of the egressing community, most species used vegetative propagation, resulting in short egress distances. Several patch‐associated species were found in seed rain collected on the peat areas but were not observed in this material, suggesting seedbed limitations. Conclusion Despite the relatively short distance of egress, this experiment suggests that placement of propagule‐rich soil material within reclaimed landscapes will promote egress into adjacent propagule‐poor soil material.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · 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