MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971975851 · doi:10.1139/x07-087

Increment and decay in Norway spruce and Scots pine after artificial logging damage

2007· article· en· W1971975851 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Harri Mäkinen, Anna‐Maija Hallaksela, Antti Isomäki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScots pinePicea abiesCoringCollarPinus <genus>LoggingEnvironmental sciencePicea engelmanniiBotanyHorticultureForestryBiologyGeographyPinus contortaMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of depth, size, location, and season of artificial logging damage on increment and decay of Norway spruce ( Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and Scots pine ( Pinus sylvestris L.) trees were studied in long-term experiments in central Finland. Damage types applied were root damage, root collar damage, increment borer hole, and stem damage. In root collar and stem damages, two sizes (100 or 400 cm2) and depths (shallow or deep) were applied. Five to 20 years after damaging, the damages did not result in a decrease in radial, height, or volume increment. In Norway spruce, the frequency of decay in the root collar and stem damages was high. From large and deep damages, decay spread faster than from smaller and shallow ones. In Scots pine, a lower proportion of trees were decayed compared with Norway spruce. Increment coring resulted in decay in most of the trees, but the decay spread slowly. The effect of compass direction or the month of damaging was negligible. The most common decay fungus in Norway spruce was Stereum sanguinolentum (Alb. & Schwein. Fr.:) Fr. In Scots pine, only nondecay fungi were isolated. In general, logging damages decreased sawlog production through the rejection of butt logs containing decay or discoloration.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations39
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207