MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094999962 · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21149-9

Carbon fractions in the world’s dead wood

2021· article· en· W3094999962 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam R. Martin, Grant M. Domke, Mahendra Doraisami, Sean C. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto ScarboroughNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceNorthern Research StationUniversity of TorontoU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBiomeDead woodDead treeCarbon stockBiomass (ecology)Temperate rainforestEnvironmental scienceTemperate climateTemperate forestForestryBiologyEcologyBiodiversityClimate changeGeographyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A key uncertainty in quantifying dead wood carbon (C) stocks-which comprise ~8% of total forest C pools globally-is a lack of accurate dead wood C fractions (CFs) that are employed to convert dead woody biomass into C. Most C estimation protocols utilize a default dead wood CF of 50%, but live tree studies suggest this value is an over-estimate. Here, we compile and analyze a global database of dead wood CFs in trees, showing that dead wood CFs average 48.5% across forests, deviating significantly from 50%, and varying systematically among biomes, taxonomic divisions, tissue types, and decay classes. Utilizing data-driven dead wood CFs in tropical forests alone may correct systematic overestimates in dead wood C stocks of ~3.0 Pg C: an estimate approaching nearly the entire dead wood C pool in the temperate forest biome. We provide for the first time, robust empirical dead wood CFs to inform global forest C estimation.

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 score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations102
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207