MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951945837 · doi:10.7202/1060052ar

La forêt boréale du Québec : influence du gradient longitudinal

2019· article· fr· W2951945837 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Pierre-Luc Couillard, Serge Payette, Martin Lavoie, Jason Laflamme

Bibliographic record

VenueLe Naturaliste canadien · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsUniversité LavalCenter for Northern Studies
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryGeographyHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nous avons documenté les caractéristiques physiographiques, climatiques et écologiques du domaine bioclimatique de la pessière noire à mousses le long d’un transect longitudinal de 1 000 km, de l’Abitibi à la Basse-Côte-Nord. Dans la portion ouest du domaine, le climat continental et plus sec favorise les feux. Les pessières à épinette noire et celles à épinette noire et à pin gris constituent les peuplements dominants. Les pessières à épinette noire et sapin baumier augmentent en importance dans la portion centrale du domaine, tandis que sur la Côte-Nord, les feux moins fréquents et le climat plus humide favorisent les sapinières perturbées par les épidémies d’insectes. C’est dans cette région que la proportion de forêts âgées de plus de 100 ans est la plus élevée. Les pessières à lichens et les lichénaies sont aussi plus abondantes à l’est de Sept-Îles. L’ampleur des changements observés montre qu’il est primordial de considérer le gradient longitudinal pour expliquer la répartition des formations végétales de la forêt boréale, au même titre que le gradient latitudinal qui, lui, est beaucoup plus souvent étudié.

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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLe Naturaliste canadienSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207