MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789984598 · doi:10.30960/kjnc.2015.13.1_2.11

Vegetation of the Mt. Inwang

2015· article· en· W2789984598 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kyung-Eui Lee, Jae-Kuk Shim

Bibliographic record

VenueKorean Journal of Nature Conservation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEcology and Conservation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPinus densifloraQuercus serrataRobiniaTerminalia arjunaQuercus variabilisBotanyShrubVegetation (pathology)ForestryBroussonetiaBiologyGeographyTerminalia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The forest vegetation of Mt. Inwang was surveyed from August to October 2014. The vegetation of Mt. Inwang classified into 12 main communities according to the phisiognomic dominant species: P. densiflora commintity, P. densiflora-Prunus sargentii commintity, P. densiflora-Quercus mongolica commintity, P. densiflora-R. pseudoacacia commintity, Q. acutissima commintity, Q. acutissima- P. densiflora commintity, Q. acutissima-R. pseudoacacia commintity, Quercus variabilis commintity, Robinia pseudoacacia commintity, R. pseudoacacia-Pinus. densiflora commintity, R. pseudoacacia- Quercus acutissima commintity, R. pseudoacacia-Quercus serrata commintity. In addition, we identified the P. densiflora commintity distributed around the mountain top rocky ridge area, and R. pseudoacacia community is bordered on the inhabitant in the foot of mountain. P. densiflora-P. sargentii commintity showed higher species diversity than other communities. The degree of green naturality (DGN) 7 occupied 46.8% and DGN 6 occupied 40.6% of Mt. Inwang area. The coverage of herb layer of plant community was poor of 10%, shrub layer was 30~40%, and tree layer was 80% in all plant communities. However the coverage of sub-tree layer was very thin in pine tree communities. The frequency distribution in DBH-class of P. densiflora in the P. densiflora community showed scarce distribution of small diameter trees, and was opposed to the R. pseudoacacia that had large individuals of small diameter in the R. pseudoacacia community. The net primary productivity (NPP) was assumed as 1,504.42 g/m2/yr(use temp.) by Miami model, and 1,483.99 g/m2/yr by Montreal model, respectively.

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)0.001
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKorean Journal of Nature ConservationSame topicEcology and Conservation StudiesFrench-language works237,207