MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801549624 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1700294115

Effects of national ecological restoration projects on carbon sequestration in China from 2001 to 2010

2018· article· en· W2801549624 on OpenAlexaff
Fei Lu, Huifeng Hu, Wenjuan Sun, Jiaojun Zhu, Guobin Liu, Wangming Zhou, Quanfa Zhang, Peili Shi, Xiuping Liu, Xing Wu, Lu Zhang, Xiaohua Wei, Kerong Zhang, Yirong Sun, Sha Xue, Wanjun Zhang, Dingpeng Xiong, Lei Deng, Bojie Liu, Li Zhou, Chao Zhang, Xiao Zheng, Jiansheng Cao, Yao Huang, Nianpeng He, Guoyi Zhou, Yongfei Bai, Zongqiang Xie, Zhiyao Tang, Bingfang Wu, Jingyun Fang, Guohua Liu, Guirui Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersYouth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of SciencesMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsCarbon sequestrationChinaRestoration ecologyEnvironmental scienceNatural resource economicsCarbon fibersEnvironmental resource managementEcologyEnvironmental protectionGeographyEconomicsCarbon dioxideBiologyComputer scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance China has launched six key ecological restoration projects since the late 1970s, but the contribution of these projects to terrestrial C sequestration remains unknown. In this study we examined the ecosystem C sink in the project area (∼16% of the country’s land area) and evaluated the project-induced C sequestration. The total annual C sink in the project area between 2001 and 2010 was estimated to be 132 Tg C per y, over half of which (74 Tg C per y, 56%) was caused by the implementation of the six projects. This finding indicates that the implementation of the ecological restoration projects in China has significantly increased ecosystem C sequestration across the country.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations888
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207