MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804327487 · doi:10.3390/su10051640

Coarse Woody Debris as a Land Reclamation Amendment at an Oil Sands Mining Operation in Boreal Alberta, Canada

2018· article· en· W2804327487 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Bradley D. Pinno, Sanatan Das Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Natural Resources Limited
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCoarse woody debrisRevegetationSoil waterLand reclamationPlant communityEcologyAgronomySpecies richnessSoil scienceBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coarse woody debris (CWD) is an important component of natural forests and is now being used in reclaiming oil sands land to control erosion, enhance diversity, and function as longer term storage of organic matter. However, the impact of woody debris on reclaimed ecosystems may vary depending on the amount applied and the soil it is applied to. We studied the impact on the plant community (including tree regeneration and understory plants) and soil properties of four levels of CWD cover (None, Low, Moderate, High) on two reclamation soils (forest floor-mineral mix and peat-mineral mix) and natural post-fire soils. Significant differences were observed among soil types in terms of the plant community and soil properties but fewer differences were attributable to CWD. However, overall native plant species’ diversity and abundance decreased with High CWD while cover of non-native species on the reclaimed soils greatly decreased with Low CWD. Natural seedling regeneration density of trembling aspen was unaffected by CWD on both reclamation soil types. The soil nutrient supply rates and soil moisture were significantly different among soil types but there were no differences among debris treatments while soil temperature decreased with CWD. Overall, a Low (up to 30% ground cover) woody debris application appears to be optimal for maintaining native plant species diversity and abundance while controlling undesirable plant species.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207