MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1838191900 · doi:10.22230/jem.2009v10n2a419

British Columbia's Northeastern Forests: Aspen Complex Stand Establishment Decision Aid

2009· article· en· W1838191900 on OpenAlexaffabout
Larry McCulloch, Richard Kabzems

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecosystems and Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British ColumbiaMinistry of Forests
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeciduousPulpwoodAgroforestryTaigaGeographyCoppicingForestryWillowBiomass (ecology)Woody plantEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aspen (Populus tremuloides) is the most widely distributed tree species in North America and can be found from the McKenzie Delta to northern Mexico. Its range in British Columbia is restricted to the Interior except for the east coast of Vancouver Island and along the Skeena, Kitimat, and Fraser rivers where it extends to the mouth of the river. In recent years, utilization of the species has increased dramatically, particularly in northeastern BC where aspen is the main fibre source for several OSB and veneer mills. Other aspen products include: dimension lumber, paper, molded wood composites, molding and trim, crates, pallets, pellets, chop sticks, fruit and vegetable boxes, furniture, fuel, and forage for livestock. The combined AAC for deciduous species in the Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, and Fort Nelson TSAs is almost 2 million m3/year. In 2006, the shipment value for OSB and aspen veneer produced in BC was $2.2 billion. Aspen can be an aggressive competitor for conifer species (particularly in the Black and White Boreal Spruce zone) but it also provides many non-timber services and is considered to be an acceptable crop tree and commercial species in a number of TSAs in the province. This Stand Establishment Decision Aid (SEDA) provides information to help forest managers in northern BC understand how to manage aspen for timber production as well as how to manage it when it is not regarded as a crop species. The following pages describe: the environmental conditions in which it is found; tree and stand regeneration; growth and yield; effects on crop trees and forest productivity; forest health considerations; management practices; and other values and benefits associated with aspen. The synopsis also includes a short list of references for further reading. For information on managing aspen in the Southern Interior of BC, see Swift and Turner (2004). Information in this document is based on a review of the pertinent literature and expert opinion.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ecosystems and ManagementSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207