Fauna activity on soils developing on dead logs in an ancient inland temperate rainforest of North British Columbia (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose The aim of the study was to compare the feeding activity of soil fauna in forest floor soil and in soil layer developing on dead cedar logs in temperate ancient rainforest of North British Columbia (Canada) inlands. Materials and methods Bait–lamina test was applied to study the soil fauna feeding activity. On each of ten plots, measurements were conducted on a dead tree trunk (log) and in the typical forest floor soil in the close vicinity (< 10 m) of the log. A range of physicochemical properties of soil was measured for both environments. Results and discussion The feeding activity of soil fauna did not differ between log and forest floor soils (pairedttest,t = 0.1693). Log soils and forest floor soils did not differ in a range of physicochemical properties measured, that is element content and pH, with the exception of organic matter content, which was significantly higher in log soil than in forest floor soil (p = 0.037). Conclusions Soil developing on dead cedar logs creates a similar environment for the development and activity of soil fauna as the organic layer of forest floor soil.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".