MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770533666 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0175

Woody material structural degradation through decomposition on the forest floor

2017· article· en· W2770533666 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shawn Fraver, Mehdi Tajvidi, Anthony W. D’Amato, Daniel L. Lindner, Jodi A. Forrester, Amy M. Milo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinnesota Environment and Natural Resources Trust FundU.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceStructural integrityDecompositionCoarse woody debrisEcosystemEcologyMaterials scienceSoil scienceBiologyHabitatStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dead woody material (DWM) plays numerous important roles in forest ecosystems; however, through the process of decomposition, it undergoes structural and chemical changes that progressively alter its function in these roles. Much remains unknown about how DWM mechanical strength and structural integrity change through decomposition in natural forest settings. We assessed changes in wood strength (bending strength, compressive strength, and surface hardness) using standard wood stakes of known initial mass from three species. The stakes were placed in forested settings for two and four years before collection for laboratory analyses. All three strength metrics decreased as stakes lost mass due to decay; however, bending strength had the strongest relationship with mass loss, a result that was consistent for all species, as well as species-pooled data. Results for all strength-loss metrics indicate that stakes had experienced ca. 10% strength loss before any detectable mass loss had occurred. Further, our results suggest that the decay class system typically used during field inventories — based in large part on tactile assessments of wood structural integrity — may provide a reasonable characterization of DWM mass loss, which is a critical assumption for carbon accounting and modelling based on inventory data.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207