MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Establishment and Thinning of Shelterwoods on Harvester Performance

2000· article· en· W1541950927 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
L. Eliasson

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

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

Citations13
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forest EngineeringSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207