Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past several decades, expanding eastern red cedar (Juniperus viginiana) populations have altered prairie and grassland ecosystems in the Great Plains, causing a reduction in livestock grazing capacity. This study examined the effects of eastern red cedar removal on cattle forage coverage located on private property in northeastern Nebraska. An analysis of collected field data obtained using a line intercept method in a control and an experimental plot was performed on Elymus canadensis (Canada wild rye), Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass), and Bromus inermis (smooth brome), three common grassland species that serve as forage for cattle. Results show Canada wild rye responded negatively to the eastern red cedar removal, with a coverage declining from 58 cm in 2012 to 0 cm in 2014. Kentucky bluegrass initially responded negatively, declining from 1161 cm in 2012 to 217 cm in 2013, but responded positively in 2014, increasing to 414 cm. Smooth brome also experienced a similar response to cedar removal, declining from 736 cm in 2012 to 42 cm in 2013, but increasing to 234 cm in 2014. Statistical variances were not analyzed, which would help determine the magnitude of the effects the removal had on forage species, if any. Further data collection and analysis are needed to more accurately determine whether or not forage coverage will continue to increase and exceed the initial coverage recordings in 2012 with the Eastern red cedar present and provide an economic return for the ranchers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".