MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809729640 · doi:10.17221/7/2018-jfs

Spatial patterns of trees from different development stages in mixed temperate forest in the Hyrcanian region of Iran

2018· article· en· W2809729640 on OpenAlexaff
Maryam Kazempour Larsary, Kambiz Taheri Abkenar, Hassan Pourbabaei, David Pothier, Beitollah Amanzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forest Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsSyncrude (Canada)Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeechSpatial ecologyTemperate forestNaturalnessCommon spatial patternStand developmentFagus orientalisTree (set theory)Temperate rainforestEnvironmental scienceForestryTemperate climateEcologyGeographyMathematicsBiologyEcosystemPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mixed beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) forests are very important to the Hyrcanian region of Iran because of their high degree of naturalness and as a source of wood production. Determination of tree spatial patterns over development stages is a first step in understanding underlying processes driving regeneration and forest dynamics. Spatial patterns of trees from three development stages (initial, optimal and decay) of an untouched mixed beech forest were quantified within three 1-ha plots. To prepare the stem maps, we measured each tree with a DBH larger than 7.5 cm using the azimuth-distance method. Spatial patterns were then analysed using Ripley's K-function. Results indicated that the number of trees decreased from the initial stage to the decay stage, with tree spatial patterns being aggregated, slightly aggregated and highly randomized for initial, optimal and decay stages, respectively. Differences in spatial patterns among the development stages are not unexpected considering that such unmanaged forests are driven by gap dynamics which results in interactions between gap filling individuals.

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)0.001
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 score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forest ScienceSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207