MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7162105438 · doi:10.82308/30320

The role of cotton-grass (Eriophorum vaginatum) in the cardon dioxide and methane dynamics of two restored peatlands in eastern Canada /

2003· dissertation· en· W7162105438 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michèle Marinier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatMethanogenesisCarbon dioxideSink (geography)MethaneWater table

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of Eriophorum vaginatum in carbon dioxide (CO 2) and methane (CH4) dynamics of two restored peatlands in eastern Canada was examined. Sites were established in Riviere-du-Loup, Quebec from May to October of 1999 and 2000, and Shippagan, New Brunswick from May to October of 2001. CH4 emissions from E. vaginatum collars were positively related to maximum photosynthesis in 1999 and 2001, when the water table was close to the surface. CH4 emissions were also positively related to end of season above ground plant biomass at both sites. CH4 emissions from E. vaginatum collars ranged from -0.015 to 14.7 mg CH4-C m-2 h-1 at Riviere-du-Loup and -0.15 to 5.4 mg CH4-C m -2 h-1 at Shippagan. It is likely that E. vaginatum provides substrate for methanogenesis through plant production and acts as a conduit transporting CH4 to the atmosphere. Patterns of NEE from E. vaginatum depended on site-specific and year-specific conditions. E. vaginatum was a net sink for CO2 at high and low light levels at Shippagan, and a net source of CO2 at low light levels at Riviere-du-Loup.

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)0.000
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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology→French-language works237,207→