Macrolichen community structure in boreal forested wetlands on the island of Newfoundland, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forested wetlands provide important ecosystem services and vital habitat for numerous \norganisms. Epiphytic macrolichens are a common and abundant group of organisms in \nforested wetlands and, given their habitat specificity, they are of potential use as \nindicators of forested wetlands and spatial boundaries. However, little is known about the \ncommunity structure of macrolichens in forested wetlands. To address this, I first tested \nfor differences in macrolichen communities and habitat associations between wetlands \nand ecoregions. I found significant differences between forested wetland classes and \necoregions and identified potential indicator species. Second, I tested for differences in \nmacrolichen communities among swamps, ecotones, and adjacent upland forests. I found \nthat macrolichen community richness and diversity were highest in swamps and lowest in \nupland forests, and that macrolichen communities were significantly different among \nswamps, upland forests, and their ecotones. The results of this research highlight the \npotential use of macrolichens as indicators of forested wetlands and their spatial \nboundaries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".