MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1913707969 · doi:10.22230/jem.2003v3n1a249

Stand Establishment Decision Aid for nutrient-deficient, salal-dominated sites (Coastal Western Hemlock Biogeoclimatic Zone)

2003· article· en· W1913707969 on OpenAlexafffund
Leandra L Blevins, Annette Van Niejenhuis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecosystems and Management · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsWestern HemlockTsugaGeographySilvicultureLoggingThujaForest managementForestryAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Stand Establishment Decision Aid (SEDA) for the Coastal Western Hemlock (CWH) biogeoclimatic zone is the first SEDA for the coastal region. We have focused on site series that have been studied since the early 1980s as part of the Salal Cedar Hemlock Integrated Research Program (SCHIRP). The objectives of this program are: to determine the underlying causes of poor growth of regenerating western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn.), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla [Raf. Sarg.]), amabilis fir (Abies amabilis Dougl.), and Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis [Bong.] Carr.) on cutovers of old-growth cedar-hemlock forests invaded by salal (Gaultheria shallon Pursh) on the west coast of North America; and to establish the best operational means for improving productivity on these sites.The first section of this SEDA describes identifying characteristics of sites that will likely develop nutrient deficiencies. This is followed by some general information about harvesting and the goals of silvicultural treatment. The third section identifies site series that are likely to require treatment to improve conifer growth and nutrition. The fourth section outlines some possible silvicultural considerations to attain treatment goals. These include site preparation, planting and fertilization, and stand tending. Sites in the CWH often have important values for First Nations groups and for non-timber forest products. These values are described in the fifth section so that they may be considered in any management plan. Finally, we list some additional sources of information about these sites and their management.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ecosystems and ManagementSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207