AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F CA-Gro Ontario - Groundhog River, Boreal Mixedwood Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site CA-Gro Ontario - Groundhog River, Boreal Mixedwood Forest. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site CA-Gro Ontario - Groundhog River, Boreal Mixedwood Forest produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - Groundhog River (FCRN or CCP site "ON-OMW") is situated in a typical boreal mixedwood forest in northeastern Ontario (48.217 degrees north and 82.156 degrees west) about 80 km southwest of Timmins in Reeves Twp. near the Groundhog River. Rowe (1972) places the site in the Missinaibi-Cabonga Section of the Boreal Forest Region. In terms of ecoregion and ecozone, the site is in the Lake Timiskaming Lowlands of the Boreal Shield. The forest developed after high-grade logging in the 1930's. The average age in 2013 is estimated at beteen 75 and 80 years. The forest is dominated by five species characteristic of Ontario boreal mixedwoods: trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.), black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.), white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench.) Voss.), white birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.), and balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.). The surficial geology is a lacustrine deposit of varved or massive clays, silts and silty sands. The soil is an orthic gleysol with a soil moisture regime classified as fresh to very fresh. Plonski (1974) rates it as a site class 1. The topography is simple and flat with an overall elevation of 340 m ASL.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.119 | 0.049 |
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".