Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the dominant disturbance regime in coastal British Columbia? In this literature review, we discuss the relative importance of fire versus canopy gaps as agents of disturbance affecting the structure and dynamics of unmanaged coastal forests in British Columbia. Our analyses focus on the province?s wet coastal temperate rain forests, specifically the Hypermaritime and Very Wet Maritime Coastal Western Hemlock (CWHvh and CWHvm) subzones, and the Wet Hypermaritime and Moist Maritime Mountain Hemlock (MHwh and MHmm) subzones. After reviewing the relationships between disturbance events, disturbance regimes, and stand dynamics, we critically assess the traditional classification of fire regimes in the wet coastal temperate rain forests, in part by differentiating between fire occurrence and mean return intervals. We provide four lines of evidence to reject the traditional view that stand-initiating fire at intervals of 250–350 years was the dominant disturbance regime in the wet coastal temperate rain forests of British Columbia. According to recent field research, historical fires were very infrequent in wet coastal temperate rain forests and were more likely low- and mixed-severity events, rather than stand-initiating fires. As an alternative to fire, we propose that fine-scale gap dynamics is the dominant process explaining the structure and dynamics of most unmanaged stands in the province?s wet coastal temperate rain forests. Improved understanding of the spatial and temporal attributes of disturbance regimes in coastal forests has important implications for sustainable forest management and conservation of biodiversity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".