MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899388878 · doi:10.1093/njaf/20.4.167

Splitting in Fire-Killed Trees in the Boreal Forest of Alberta

2003· article· en· W2899388878 on OpenAlexaffabout
N. Nakamura, Paul M. Woodard, L. G. Bach

Bibliographic record

VenueNorthern Journal of Applied Forestry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsBurnaby HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaigaFoothillsBlack spruceBorealForestryBalsamCrown (dentistry)Environmental scienceSlash (logging)Abies balsameaPinus contortaEcologyGeographyBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tree boles in the boreal forests of Alberta, Canada will split once killed by a stand-replacing crown fire. A total of 1,485 fire-killed trees were sampled, 1 yr after burning, in 23 plots in 14 widely separated stands within a 370,000 ha fire. Sampling occurred in the Upper and Lower Foothills natural subregions. The frequency of splitting varied by species but averaged 41% for all species. The order in the frequency of splitting was balsam fir, black spruce, white spruce and lodgepole pine. The type of splitting (straight, spiral, or multiple) varied by species, as did the position of the split on the tree bole. Aspect or solar angle was not statistically related to the type or occurrence of splitting.

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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorthern Journal of Applied ForestrySame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207