Broadleaves in the Interior of British Columbia: Their extent, use, management and prospects for investment in genetic conservation and improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The principal broadleaves in Interior British Columbia (trembling aspen, paper birch, balsam poplar and black cottonwood) are well distributed across all of the major Interior ecological zones but their occurrence is greatest in the northern areas. Their utilization has gradually increased over the last 20 years, especially in the north. Economic values are low compared to conifer species but shortage of conifer timber as a result of the mountain pine beetle epidemic could drive demand for broadleaves higher. The ecological and non-timber values of broadleaves are very high; however, management practices still favour conifer species. Retention of broadleaves in harvesting and reforestation programs is widely implemented, but at a very low intensity and with little attention to broadleaf silvics. Future management of broadleaves is likely to be based largely on natural regeneration of broadleaves and not nursery production. Investments in genetic research should focus on genecology and gene conservation, as well as facilitated migration studies and investigation of pest resistance. Key words: broadleaves, trembling aspen, paper birch, black cottonwood, balsam poplar, management, genetic conservation, genetic improvement
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".