MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233901353 · doi:10.1139/x99-185

Light extinction coefficients specific to the understory vegetation of the southern boreal forest, Quebec

2000· article· en· W4233901353 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Isabelle Aubin, Marilou Beaudet, Christian Messier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderstoryVegetation (pathology)BorealTaigaEnvironmental scienceStratumExtinction (optical mineralogy)Atmospheric sciencesCanopyPhysical geographyGeographyForestryEcologyGeologyBiologyMineralogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted in six different forest types in Abitibi, Que., (i) to identify the factors that most influence understory light transmission in the southern boreal forest and (ii) to develop light extinction coefficients (k), which could be used to simulate light transmission in the understory. Light availability and understory vegetation (cover, composition, vertical distribution, and leaf area index) were characterized within three strata (0.05-5 m) in a total of 180 quadrats. Calculated k values were based on measured light availability and leaf area index. These values varied among forest types, strata, understory vegetation types, and cover in the upper stratum. The highest k values were generally associated with a dense stratum of Acer spicatum Lam. We developed five sets of k values based on the factors that most affected light transmission. Measured transmission (T m ) was compared with transmission predicted (T p ) from each set of k values. Light transmission predicted using a single k value (mean k = 0.54) underestimated T m . More accurate predictions were obtained when we used the other four sets of k values. Our results indicate that, in the southern boreal forest, the understory vegetation can be quite heterogeneous and patterns of light transmission cannot be accurately simulated using a unique k value. However, the various sets of k values developed in this study could be used in prediction models of forest dynamics to obtain relatively good predictions of understory light extinction in forest types similar to the ones studied here.

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)0.001
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 score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations89
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207