MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785827116 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2017-0193

Relative pollen productivity estimates and changes in Holocene vegetation cover in the deciduous forest of southeastern Quebec, Canada

2018· article· en· W2785827116 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michelle A. Chaput, Konrad Gajewski

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolocenePollenDeciduousTsugaVegetation (pathology)EcologyAbundance (ecology)GeographyPhysical geographyForestryBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Regional Estimates of VEgetation Abundance from Large Sites (REVEALS) model was used to quantify Holocene changes in vegetation cover in the deciduous forest of southeastern Quebec, Canada. The Extended R-Value (ERV) model was used to obtain relative pollen productivity estimates (PPEs) for eight tree taxa and to determine the relevant source area of pollen (RSAP) for lakes in this ecosystem. Modern vegetation was estimated using pollen data from 16 small (<0.5 km 2 ) lakes and a species-level vegetation survey of southern Quebec. The RSAP was estimated to be within 1600 m of the lakes. Tsuga, Fagus, and Quercus were the most productive taxa, and Populus and Acer were the lowest. Reconstructed changes in absolute vegetation cover show a high abundance of Picea followed by Populus in the early Holocene. The reconstructed values for Populus suggest that it was widely distributed across the landscape. Abies and Acer were dominant on the landscape during the late to mid-Holocene, and an increase in Picea during the Neoglacial is more significant than in percentage diagrams. The REVEALS results provide estimates of land-cover change that are more realistic and informative than the use of pollen percentages alone.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207