MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416791020 · doi:10.19189/001c.151276

Quantifying Carbon Pools and Fluxes in Southern Ontario Temperate Swamps

2025· article· en· W4416791020 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Megan Schmidt, Veronica Santia, Samantha A. Price, Harry A.W. Khumbani, Maria Strack

Bibliographic record

VenueMires and Peat · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of WaterlooNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSwampWetlandTemperate climateSoil respirationWater tableHydrology (agriculture)Carbon dioxideBiomass (ecology)Sink (geography)Bog

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Swamps are treed wetlands, which account for the highest areal extent of wetland types in Southern Ontario due to the difficulties of conversion for development and agriculture. However, little is known about the environmental factors and processes that influence carbon (C) dynamics or the resulting C stocks and fluxes therein. We studied 12 swamps across Southern Ontario for 12 consecutive months to measure the exchange of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ) between soil and atmosphere and estimate current C stocks in soil and biomass. We found mean growing season soil respiration of CO 2 and CH 4 across the swamps ranged from 11 g m -2 d -1 to 49 g m -2 d -1 and -3 mg m -2 d -1 to 44 mg m -2 d -1 , respectively, with a water table threshold at about 20 cm where fluxes changed substantially. Biomass stored 7.92–37.0 kg m -2 of C across the sites, and soil stored 11.6–35.5 kg m -2 . Over the study year, the swamps functioned as C sinks and followed similar patterns of relationships to environmental conditions as bogs and fens, with little difference between hydrogeomorphic settings or canopy types.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMires and PeatSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207