MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Establishment and Thinning of Shelterwoods on Harvester Performance

2000· article· en· W1541950927 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forest Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThinningProductivityEnvironmental scienceForestryNatural regenerationAgroforestryAgricultural engineeringEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An increased use of shelterwoods in regeneration has generated a demand for knowledge of how single-grip harvester performance is affected by shelterwood treatments. Time consumption and productivity of a large single-grip harvester working in shelterwood establishment and thinning was studied using work sampling. Five treatments were studied, 1) shelterwood establishment, thinning of 2) sparse, 3) medium and 4) dense shelterwoods and 5) clear-cutting. Each treatment was replicated three times. Results shows that time consumption for the average harvested tree increased with tree volume and declining number of harvested trees per ha. Productivity was higher in clear-cutting than in any of the shelterwood treatments. Harvesting costs in the shelterwood system thus becomes higher than in the clear-cutting system. These costs must be carefully weighted against the ecological and silvicultural benefits of the shelterwood, including the possible reductions of the regeneration costs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.160 · 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