MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6910985363 · doi:10.5061/dryad.18931zcxk

GLOWCAD: A global database of woody tissue carbon concentrations/fractions

2022· dataset· en· W6910985363 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2022
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoody plantCoarse woody debrisDead woodCarbon cycleKey (lock)Carbon fibers

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Woody tissue carbon (C) concentration is a key wood trait necessary for accurately estimating forest C stocks and fluxes, which also varies widely across species and biomes. However, coarse approximations of woody tissue C (e.g., 50%) remain commonplace in forest C estimation and reporting protocols, despite leading to substantial errors in forest C estimates. Here, we describe the Global Woody Tissue Carbon Concentration Database (GLOWCAD): a database containing 3,676 individual records of woody tissue C concentrations from 864 tree species. Woody tissue C concentration data—i.e., the mass of C per unit dry mass—were obtained from live and dead woody tissues from 130 peer-reviewed sources published between 1980-2020. Auxiliary data for each observation include tissue type, as well as decay class and size characteristics for dead wood. In GLOWCAD, 1,242 data points are associated with geographic coordinates, and are therefore presented alongside 46 standardized bioclimatic variables extracted from climate databases. GLOWCAD represents the largest available woody tissue C concentration database, and informs studies on forest C estimation, as well as analyses evaluating the extent, causes, and consequences of inter- and intraspecific variation in wood chemical traits.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2880.005

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.331 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDFrench-language works237,207