MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LAC CROCHE UNDERSTORY VEGETATION DATA SET (1998–2006)

2016· other· en· W6958885999 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvances in Cucurbitaceae Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderstoryTransectVegetation (pathology)Sampling (signal processing)Basal areaCanopyElevation (ballistics)Tree canopyTemperate rainforest

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lac Croche data set covers a nine-year period (1998–2006) of detailed understory vegetation sampling of a temperate North American forest located in the <i>Station de Biologie des Laurentides</i> (SBL), Québec, Canada. After having been submitted to logging in the late 19th and early 20th centuries followed by a major fire in 1923, the forest is currently in a transition state dominated by pioneer canopy tree species. The sampling design is based on the annual re-sampling of 43 permanent 400-m<sup>2</sup> plots along five transects running parallel to an elevation gradient from a lake (Lac Croche) to the top of a hill. Abundances of all understory vascular plants (tree seedlings, herbs, and shrubs) are included in the data set and are expressed either as absolute densities or cover classes, depending on life form. The location and elevation of each plot, as well as some key environmental descriptors such as slope, rockiness, canopy openness, age of the largest tree, basal area of mature trees, and a number of soil variables are also available. The Lac Croche data set should prove useful for testing hypotheses about forest vegetation dynamics at different scales, as well as to test new statistical tools developed for the analysis of the spatio-temporal variation of plant distributions. Sampling is ongoing, and new data will be added every year.

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 categoriesInsufficient 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0700.009

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicAdvances in Cucurbitaceae ResearchFrench-language works237,207