MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000144332 · doi:10.1007/s11368-019-02559-1

Fauna activity on soils developing on dead logs in an ancient inland temperate rainforest of North British Columbia (Canada)

2020· article· en· W3000144332 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Beata Klimek, Maria Niklińska

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Soils and Sediments · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniwersytet Jagielloński w KrakowieEuropean Commission
KeywordsForest floorRainforestSoil waterEnvironmental scienceFaunaTemperate rainforestTemperate forestSoil biologyTemperate climateEcologyForestrySoil scienceGeographyEcosystemBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 (paired t test, 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 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 score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.179 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Soils and SedimentsSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207