MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Peer Review #2 of "Dominant forest tree species are potentially vulnerable to climate change over large portions of their range even at high latitudes (v0.1)"

2016· peer-review· en· W4240413240 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)Climate changeLatitudeGeographyTree (set theory)Environmental sciencePhysical geographyClimatologyEcologyGeologyBiologyMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Projecting suitable conditions for a species as a function of future climate provides a reasonable, although admittedly imperfect, spatially explicit estimate of species vulnerability associated with climate change.Projections emphasizing range shifts at continental scale, however, can mask contrasting patterns at local or regional scale where management and policy decisions are made.Moreover, models usually show potential for areas to become climatically unsuitable, remain suitable, or become suitable for a particular species with climate change, but each of these outcomes raises markedly different ecological and management issues.Managing forest decline at sites where climatic stress is projected to increase is likely to be the most immediate challenge resulting from climate change.Here we assess habitat suitability with climate change for five dominant tree species of eastern North American forests, focusing on areas of greatest vulnerability (loss of suitability in the baseline range) in Quebec (Canada) rather than opportunities (increase in suitability).Results show that these species are at risk of maladaptation over a remarkably large proportion of their baseline range.Depending on species, 5 to 21% of currently climatically suitable habitats are projected to be at risk of becoming unsuitable.This suggests that species that have traditionally defined whole regional vegetation assemblages could become less adapted to these regions, with significant impact on ecosystems and forest economy.In spite of their well-recognised limitations and the uncertainty that remains, regionally-explicit risk assessment approaches remain one of the best options to convey that message and the need for climate policies and forest management adaptation strategies.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3980.244

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreOther · Commentary

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change→CategoryMetaresearch→French-language works237,207→