development of forest rings in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Forest rings are large circular features distinctive of Ontario’s boreal forest. They are centred on areas of negative redox charge and characterized by a slight depression in the mineral soil around the edge of the ring. A field and laboratory investigation of forest rings is investigating the complex relationship between physical, chemical and microbiological processes occurring at the edge of these features. Physical changes that are known to occur include a slight positive electrical field anomaly over the centre of the ring, a negative thermal and hydraulic-conductivity anomaly. Chemical changes are profound and most exemplified by a very sharp redox gradient at the edge of the ring between the chemically reduced interior and the oxidized exterior. Microbiological processes are also occurring and although cause-and-effect relationships are still unproven, they may be crucial in the formation of the rings. A 4 week laboratory experiment involves the in vitro creation of the redox gradients of the two end-member types of rings: one centred on a hydrogen sulphide source and another on a methane source. Test-tubes are being inoculated with bacteria from the highest-gradient ring parts of the respective ring edges. Measurements will provide insight on the role of micro-organisms in ring formation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".