MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3049451918 · doi:10.33915/etd.1616

Analysis of red spruce (Picea rubens) regeneration in Pocahontas, Randolph, and Tucker counties, West Virginia

2005· dissertation· en· W3049451918 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Adam W. Rollins

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyMcGill UniversityUniversity of Arkansas
KeywordsEcotoneHardwoodCanopyForestryPicea abiesGeographyEcologyBiologyArchaeologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three red spruce communities in the Central Appalachians of West Virginia were accessed temporally over a period of 10 to 11 years and by forest zones (i.e. hardwood, ecotone, red spruce zones). These communities experienced an increasing density of red spruce over time across all forest zones. Red spruce was successfully establishing and expanding across the ecotone into the hardwood forest zone. The greatest increase of red spruce was seen in the more disturbed and earlier successional sites, whereas the less disturbed red spruce community experienced the least change. The red spruce populations in this study were thriving and increasing the density of red spruce seedlings, advanced regeneration and trees across the spruce-hardwood ecotone as well as under the surrounding hardwood canopy. Red spruce seedling densities were found to be greater with increased cover of bryophytes and coarse woody debris, while densities are reduced with increasing cover of Dryopteris spp.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→