MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905096071 · doi:10.5539/ijb.v11n1p1

Site Factors Influence on Herbaceous Understory Diversity in East Texas Pinus palustris savannas

2018· article· en· W2905096071 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brooke McCalip, Brian P. Oswald, Kathryn R. Kidd, Yuhui Weng, Kenneth W. Farrish

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderstoryBasal areaHerbaceous plantGeographyEcologyPinus <genus>ForestryAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceBiologyCanopyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) savannas were once dominant across the southeastern U.S., including East Texas and parts of western and central Louisiana. The diverse understory associated with these historical savannas may occasionally be seen today, but not often in longleaf pine ecosystems. This project aimed to define east Texas site characteristics that are necessary to support these ecosystems with a dense and diverse herbaceous understory with little to no midstory cover. Fifty-nine plots across three study sites were established to evaluate the influence of overstory cover, basal area, aspect, elevation, and slope on the number of plant genera present. Forest structure and site characteristics had significant effects on the number of plant genera found. The number of genera increased with higher elevation and slope; as elevation increased, there was a decline in basal area and overstory cover, leading to a more diverse, understory layer. In order to re-establish and maintain a diverse, herbaceous understory in longleaf pine savannas, sites with more open canopies and on slopes with the most solar exposure should be given priority, particularly when planting desired understory 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 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)0.000
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of BiologySame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207