MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2943342001 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n6p129

Above-ground Biomass Recovery in Managed Tropical Forest in the Jari Valley, Eastern Amazon

2019· article· en· W2943342001 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adriano Castelo dos Santos, Eleneide Doff Sotta, Marcelino Carneiro Guedes, Lilian Blanc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Amapá
KeywordsLoggingAmazon rainforestEnvironmental scienceCarbon stockForestryBiomass (ecology)Carbon sequestrationTropicsRainforestAgroforestryHydrology (agriculture)GeographyClimate changeEcologyGeologyCarbon dioxideBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tropical forests play an important role in maintaining the regional rainfall regime and global climate, besides representing a significant stock of carbon. This study aimed at evaluate above-ground biomass (AGB) recovery, after reduced-impact logging (RIL) in a managed forest on the Jari River valley. The data were collected in 15 plots (100 m × 100 m) in the management area of the Jari Florestal Company. To estimate AGB we used a local equation adjusted for forests in the eastern Amazon. AGB before logging ranged from 157.9 Mg ha-1 to 619.9 Mg ha-1, with an average of 362.5 Mg ha-1. AGB after logging ranged from 151.2 Mg ha-1 to 632.8 Mg ha-1, with an average of 322.4 Mg ha-1. The time of monitoring of the plots and logging intensity were the main factors that influenced the recovery of the AGB. In 12 years after the RIL, the forest was able to recover its initial stocks of AGB, in places of low exploitation intensity.

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)0.001
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural Science→Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→