MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4236081089 · doi:10.24124/2016/bpgub1143

Soil and topographic features affect plant growth on a natural gas pipeline right-of-way in northeastern British Columbia

2016· dissertation· en· W4236081089 on OpenAlexaffabout
Toby Turner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevegetationBiomass (ecology)Environmental scienceRidgeNatural (archaeology)WetlandGeographyForestrySoil waterHydrology (agriculture)Land reclamationEcologyGeologyArchaeologySoil scienceBiologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural gas reserves in northeastern British Columbia (B.C.) are being extracted, yet the effects to soils and plants from industrial disturbance in the region are poorly understood. This study examined soil and topographic factors that affect plant establishment and growth on a reclaimed natural gas pipeline. The study area was located approximately 70 km southeast of Tumbler Ridge, B.C. Field sampling took place between spring 2012 and summer 2013. Soil properties were examined to understand growing conditions at the site, natural regeneration was observed to understand current species diversity, and growth parameters were taken for lodgepole pine and shrubby cinquefoil. Soil nutrients were higher in wetland blocks than upland blocks, and were associated with greater species diversity. Plant growth was greatest in north-facing blocks, however biomass was greatest in crest blocks. Reliance on natural revegetation can delay site recovery, and reclaiming a site requires site-specific plant species in northeastern B.C. --Leaf ii.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→