MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038712206 · doi:10.1139/as-2019-0016

Boreal tree regeneration after fire and fuelwood harvesting in coastal Nunatsiavut

2020· article· en· W3038712206 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lucas Brehaut, Carissa D. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegeneration (biology)Abies balsameaSubarctic climateTaigaDisturbance (geology)SeedlingEnvironmental scienceEcologyForestryChronosequenceAgroforestryGeographyBalsamEcological successionBiologyAgronomyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consecutive landscape-scale disturbances are known to influence boreal forest regeneration, yet few published data exist on the compounding effects of natural and anthropogenic disturbance on regeneration in subarctic forests. We conducted a dendroecological study of eastern coastal boreal forest regeneration two decades after fire at three subarctic forest stands that are important sources of fuelwood for the people of Nunatsiavut (Labrador, Canada). We quantified spruce (Picea spp.) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) seedling regeneration, standing dead tree density, trees harvested within burned forests, and aged proximal unburned stands. Age of unburned forest varied with site; however, each exhibited continuous regeneration over several decades. Despite low seedling regeneration at each site (stems·m −2 ; less than 35% of pre-fire stem density), model results indicated harvesting post-fire did not impact seedling regeneration. Findings suggest a negative pressure on seedling abundance from increased presence of tall multi-stemmed shrubs, yet we argue that because stands exhibit a range in tree age, shrubs may be a set of early successional species rather than indicating a change in successional trajectory. Examination of a larger chronosequence within coastal forest stands of Nunatsiavut is warranted to further understand forest regeneration in the eastern subarctic under changing disturbance regimes.

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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic ScienceSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207