MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098990734

Curator of Botany and Earth History

2015· article· en· W7098990734 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomeBiodiversityEcosystemClimate changeDisturbance (geology)WetlandForest ecologyWildlife
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicted atmospheric change, mainly climate change, will have profound effects on the biodiversity of Canadian forests. Predictions derived from forest models, responses of spe-cies and ecosystems related to modern ecological characteristics and paleoecological stud-ies suggest large-scale, wide-ranging changes from the biome to physiological levels. Paleoecological analogues in B.C. and other parts of Canada reveal that major changes must be expected in forest composition, range, structure and ecological processes. In B.C., past warmer and drier climates supported a different forest pattern, including forest types with no modern analogue. This produced dramatically different disturbance regimes, specifically more fires, and affected tree growth rates. The relationship of forests with non-forest habitats, especially wetlands and grasslands was different suggesting implications for wildlife biodiversity. British Columbia's Forest Practices Code prescribes guidelines for biodiversity objectives but ignores the issue of atmospheric change. This omission may result from a lack of understanding of the profound potential effects of atmospheric change on forest biodiversity in the next harvest cycle and lack of mechanisms to assess impacts and develop manage-ment strategies for specific sites. An example of a simple paleoecological assessment method involving pollen ratios is proposed.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHistorical and Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207