MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100333801

Influence of disturbance on soil C dynamics in

2007· article· en· W7100333801 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)Soil carbonForest floorTaigaLitterBorealSoil horizonHydrology (agriculture)Carbon fibers
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canadian boreal forest ecosystems, estimates of carbon (C) in the forest floor and total soil were compared and the influence of disturbance was evaluated. The soil C estimates were based on data from: (a) analysis of pedon data from the national-scale soil profile database; (b) the Canadian Soil Organic Carbon Database (CSOCD), which uses expert estimation based on soil characteristics; and (c) model simulations with the Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector (CBM-CFS2). Estimates for soil C from the three approaches ranged from 1.3 to 5.3 kg C m for the forest floor and from 7.8 to 19.2 kg C m for the total soil column. Variations in litter input rates due to different type of disturbances cause most of the variation in the soil carbon pools. Changes in disturbance history, litter fall rate, site characteristics, and climatic factors alter the processes regulating both inputs and outputs of carbon to soil stocks. Thus, understanding the dynamics of C as determined by disturbances is essential for quantifying past changes in soil C stocks and for projecting their future change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics→French-language works237,207→