Carbon Dynamics in Canada's Managed Forests from 1991 to 2006: A Comparison of InTEC and CBM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the annual C balance and its shifting trend in Canada’s managed forests from 1991 to 2006 using the Integrated Terrestrial Ecosystem C-budget (InTEC) model. During this period, Canada’s managed forests remained a moderate C sink of 58 Mt C yr¬¬¬-1 on average, but displayed an apparent trend of shifting towards a C source. The combined risk of climate change and increased disturbances are weakening the C sink in Canada’s managed forests. This study also compared the results from InTEC with those from CBM-CFS (Carbon Budget Model of the Canadian Forest Sector) at both national and regional levels. InTEC shows larger inter-annual variability and regional difference than CBM-CFS due to its incorporation of both disturbance and non-disturbance factors. In comparison, CBM-CFS3 has likely underestimated both the true C loss and the C sink potential of Canada’s managed forests, given that it does not account for the non-disturbance factors.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".