MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3167054180 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-1579

On thin ice: contrasting responses of woody NPP to permafrost thaw

2021· article· en· W3167054180 on OpenAlexaff
Aleksandra Kulawska, A. R. MacKenzie, Nicholas Kettridge, Sami Ullah, Thomas A. M. Pugh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicClimate change and permafrost
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermafrostPrimary productionEnvironmental scienceProductivitySoil waterLatitudeAtmospheric sciencesEcosystemEcologySoil scienceGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Boreal forests are located at latitudes that are predicted to experience some of the greatest warming on the planet. Forests growing on permafrost may be particularly vulnerable, with accelerated soil warming and permafrost degradation linked to changes in woody net primary productivity (NPPw). Recent evidence suggests that the responses of NPPw to permafrost thaw are mixed, with both increases and decreases in productivity observed following the onset of permafrost degradation. What determines these contrasting responses is currently poorly understood. This leads to uncertainties in predicting the future vegetation and carbon dynamics in permafrost regions, which propagate to climate projections in Earth System Models. Here, we propose a framework, and a set of hypotheses to explain the observed differences in the response of NPPw to permafrost thaw. We argue that the relationship between permafrost thaw and NPPw is non-linear and determined by a set of climatic and environmental variables. On this basis, we partition ecosystems into classes, and describe their relationships between permafrost thaw and NPPw.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate change and permafrost→French-language works237,207→