Reintroducing fire for conservation of fescue prairie association remnants in the northern Great Plains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Romo, J. T. 2003. Reintroducing fire for conservation of Fescue Prairie Association remnants in the Northern GreatPlains.Canadian Field-Naturalist 117(1):89-99.The wide geographic distribution, variable climates and associated vegetation, different species of rough fescue, and presumed area-specific fire histories give rise to a range of plant community responses of the Fescue Prairie Association to burning.These variable responses represent potential opportunities for using fire to conserve the biodiversity of Fescue Prairie.Fire can be reintroduced as a process to create temporal and spatial variation in composition, structure, and functioning in a mosaic.This variability can be achieved by reintroducing fire throughout the year, altering the frequency and the proportion of prairie remnants burned, and by using many types of fires.In most cases specific burning prescriptions are not needed to reintroduce fire as a process that is essential for maintaining structure, functioning and composition in Fescue Prairie remnants.A primary goal for conserving Fescue Prairie remnants should be to reintroduce fire as a process to create and maintain patterns and diversity in species assemblages and species composition.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".