Above- and below-ground effects of aspen clonal regeneration and succession to conifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Above- and below-ground characteristics were measured and compared for six sets of paired trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) clones on the Fishlake National Forest in central Utah. Three self-regenerating clones were compared with three non-regenerating clones and three pure aspen stands were compared with three mixed aspen-conifer stands. Regenerating clones had dense understories of younger aspen stems, which were not present in non-regenerating clones. Regenerating clones also had greater numbers of roots and greater total root surface area than non-regenerating clones. Aboveground biomass and growth of the aspen in mixed stands was less than that of pure stands. A corresponding difference in aspen root mass was not apparent, indicating that the decline of aspen in mixed stands had not yet affected the root system. Conifer height and basal area growth rates were clearly greater than those of aspen, suggesting that aspen will eventually disappear from these forests in the absence of stand-reinitiating disturbances.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".