Bibliographic record
Abstract
Printer-friendly version Discussion paper of four study sites (from undisturbed to disturbed conditions) in a peatland complex in Ontario from April 2014 until September 2015.They used a variety of methods that complement each other in space and time (e.g.chamber flux measurements of CO2 and CH4, DIC and CH4 concentration measurements at different soil depths, stable isotope measurements of CO2 and CH4, FTIR analysis of organic matter and porewater and measurements of ancillary variables such as air and water temperature, photosynthetically active radiation and water table depth below surface).The authors raise the major question, how peatland carbon fluxes respond to anthropogenically changed hydrological conditions and long-term nutrient-infiltration effects.Their major answer is that plant functional type may be a key variable to predict how soil carbon cycling in peatlands will respond to future nutrient inputs and changes in hydrology.Shrub dominated disturbed peatlands may turn into carbon sources, while graminoid-moss dominated peatlands "may maintain the peatland's carbon storage function".However, I have few major concerns but after a thorough revision and/or modification of the manuscript it would be great to see this manuscript published in the Biogeoscience journal.
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 | 0.017 | 0.219 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.020 |
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".