Data from "Millennial stocks and fluxes of large woody debris in lakes of the North American taiga"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dataset (tab-delimited text file) contains data from 2194 Large Woody Debris (LWD) pieces that were sampled along 3330 m of shoreline in five lakes of the northern taiga of Quebec, Eastern Canada. These data were used in the article "Millennial stocks and fluxes of large woody debris in lakes of the North American taiga", published in Journal of Ecology.<br>Each row contains data on one LWD piece. Column headings are described below: LWD_ID = ID of the LWD piece<br>Lake = Lake in which the LWD piece was collected<br>Shore = Shore segment in which the LWD piece was collected<br>Species = Species of the LWD piece (black spruce, balsam fir, tamarack)<br>Root = Presence of main roots still connected or not<br>Orientation = Orientation relative to the shoreline of the LWD piece<br>Charred = Presence of charcoal on the trunk or the branch tips<br>Crossdated = LWD piece crossdated to the calendar year (calendar) or into a floating chronology (chronology ID)<br>AMSDate = Radiocarbon dated LWD piece<br>NTreeRings = Number of tree-rings of the LWD piece<br>Residence_Time = Residence time in the lake of the LWD piece (year)<br>FirstTreeRing = Date of the innermost tree-ring of the LWD piece (year AD/BC)<br>LastTreeRing = Date of the outermost tree-ring of the LWD piece (year AD/BC)<br>FirstMesuredTreeRing = Date of the first measured tree-ring of the LWD piece (year AD/BC)<br>LastMesuredTreeRing = Date of the last measured tree-ring of the LWD piece (year AD/BC)<br>Burial = Burial type of the LWD piece<br>Diameter = Diameter of the LWD piece (cm)<br>Length = Length of the LWD piece (cm)<br>Volume = Volume of the LWD piece (m^3)<br>Distance = Minimum distance from the shore of the LWD piece (cm)<br>Depth = Minimum depth in the water of the LWD piece (feet)<br>BurialType = Burial type of the LWD piece (completely buried =3; partly buried =2; exposed =1)<br>Substratum = The type of underlying substratum (fine sediments =5; sand =4; gravel =3; stones =2; wood =1)<br>Aspect = The aspect of the corresponding littoral zone (from 0 to 2)<br>Exposure = The exposure to the wave action of the littoral zone (cm)<br>Orientation2 = Orientation relative to the shoreline of the LWD piece (perpendicular =3; parallel =2; inverted=1) Further details can be found in the published article.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".