Linking Topographical Ring Features to Geochemical and Geophysical Anomalies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Circular features in forests seen from air have been studied for several decades at different locations around the world. Forest rings, as they are called in Canada’s boreal forests, express several geochemical (pH, carbonate content) and geophysical (surface potential) anomalies on their 20–30 m wide ring edges. Although it has been proposed that microbial processes may cause these anomalies, the exact mechanisms of ring formation are still unknown. We focused on the Thorn North forest ring in Ontario, Canada to correlate the surface potential anomaly to soil gas concentrations. Field measurements showed that the surface potential drop at the ring edge center is framed by peaks in CO2 production, which is linked to O2 depletion and methane generation. Carbon isotope signatures were found to drop to lighter values (down to −20‰), suggesting increased respiration. Higher concentrations of uronic acids bound to extracellular polymeric substances were found, indicating that the surface potential anomaly is linked to respiration. 16S rRNA gene sequencing of shallow soil did not indicate a dominant microbial group on the edges; instead, principal component analysis showed that the microbial composition was controlled by the substrate (clayey vs. sandy soil), therefore future studies should focus on deeper ground layers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".