MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010462817 · doi:10.3390/f11030297

Disturbance Effects on Soil Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Forest Ecosystems

2020· article· en· W3010462817 on OpenAlexaff
Yanjiang Cai, Scott X. Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasDisturbance (geology)Soil carbonCarbon sequestrationEcosystemForest ecologyGlobal warmingClimate changeLand use, land-use change and forestryAgroforestryLand useSoil waterEcologySoil scienceCarbon dioxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forests cover around 30% of the global land area and forest ecosystems can store over 70% of total soil organic carbon (SOC) of all terrestrial ecosystems, but SOC stocks and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions may be affected by both natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Even though the changes in forest soil C pool can have a significant effect on climate change, there are some contradictory results regarding the role of forest disturbance on SOC sequestration, GHG emissions, and the mitigation of global changes. Therefore, there is a need to better understand the impact of different disturbance regimes on forest soil C storage and GHG emissions. A Special Issue was therefore organized for discussing the responses of soil C storage and GHG emissions to various types of disturbances in forest ecosystems and a total of 15 studies were accepted for this special issue to assess these responses. This Special Issue includes the effects of storms and beetle outbreaks, Karstification, rock desertification, warming, nitrogen addition, land-use change, field tillage, and biochar application on soil C dynamics and/or GHG emissions.

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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207