Hard Hill experimental plots on Moor House – Upper Teesdale National Nature Reserve - A review of the experimental set up (NECR321)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hard Hill experimental plots on Moor House -Upper Teesdale National Nature ReserveA review of the experimental set up Foreword Natural England commission a range of reports from external contractors to provide evidence and advice to assist us in delivering our duties.The views in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Natural England. BackgroundThe Hard Hill experimental plots on Moor House NNR were established in 1954 to investigate the interaction between prescribed burning and grazing upon blanket bog vegetation in the North Pennines.The treatments (burning on short (10year) and longer (20-year) rotations, no-burning, grazing and no-grazing) have been continued and since their initiation and the experiment has been the subject of numerous investigations.In recent years, there has been discussion as to how comparable the blocks and plots are, and this project was initiated to investigate the similarities and differences between the blocks and plots to help guide new research in addition to revisiting previous findings.This report should be cited as: CLUTTERBUCK, B., LINDSAY, R, CHICO, G., CLOUGH, J. 2020.Hard Hill experimental plots on Moor House -Upper Teesdale
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.005 |
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".