MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impacts of Forest Management Stargate on Longterm Carbon Sequestration and Storage in Plantation Forests: A Case Study in China

2025· article· W7138320160 on OpenAlexaff
Jiqin Ren, Xiangyu Qi, Jianghong Feng, Jingjing Li, Guoliang Liu, Xiaohong Xu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon sequestrationChinaForest managementCarbon fibersCarbon sink

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forests act as a vital carbon reservoir. Hence, optimizing carbon sequestration and storage is an approach to attaining carbon neutrality. The Three-North Shelterbelt Project (TNSP) is the largest planted forestry ecological project in China. Established in 1978, it has significantly improved the ecological environment in North China. However, its carbon sequestration capacity is not well understood. This study employed the Forest Simulation Optimization System to model the forest carbon storage in TNSP across 200 years (1978-2177). It was observed that in the scenario without logging (Scenario 1), carbon storage fluctuates alongside the natural growth and death of trees, with a peak value of 10.7 million tons. In the logging scenario (Scenario 2), i.e., harvesting trees when they are mature and replanting new trees, carbon storage is greater and sustains a steady level of 15.1 million tons. Drawing on this study's findings, suggestions were put forward to boost carbon sequestration and storage in the TNSP, as well as to incorporate TNSP's forest management into regional economic and environmental planning.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Management and Policy→French-language works237,207→