MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173642632 · doi:10.82308/44632

Partitioning belowground respiration in a northern peatland

2006· article· en· W3173642632 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heather Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatRespirationEnvironmental scienceBiologyEcologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To further the understanding of respiration processes of northern peatlands, the relative importance of each type of belowground respiration was determined at Mer Bleue, a northern peatland located near Ottawa, Ontario, from June to November, 2003. Direct measurements of total, soil organic matter (SOM) and root respiration were made, with rhizosphere respiration determined by residual. Although an aboveground source, determination of live Sphagnum respiration was also attempted in the field. To identify changes in CO2 fluxes with environmental conditions, peat temperature and water table levels were monitored throughout the study period. SOM respiration was higher than hypothesized at 63% while root and rhizosphere respiration were lower than hypothesized at 21% and 16%, respectively, of total belowground respiration. As the field experiment for determining live Sphagnum respiration was unsuccessful, it was determined by calculation to be 18% of total respiration, slightly higher than hypothesized. Opposite of hypothesized, air temperatures, peat temperatures and water table levels generally had weak and insignificant relationships when linearly regressed with total respiration.

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 score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207