MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989759366 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-30-5-753

Persistence of suppression effects on peatland black spruce advance regeneration after overstory removal

2000· article· en· W1989759366 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arthur Groot, Hannu Hökkä

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasal areaBlack sprucePeatPersistence (discontinuity)BiologyEnvironmental scienceUnderstoryGrowth modelStand developmentEcologyForestryMathematicsGeographyTaigaCanopyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The persistence of suppression effects on peatland black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) advance regeneration following overstory removal was examined (i) by analyzing post-harvest growth patterns and (ii) by comparing observed post-harvest growth with predictions from an individual-tree growth model. Analysis of growth patterns revealed critical points (inflections or maxima) in annual basal area, diameter, and height growth series, and in specific volume increment. Critical points occurred at different times (ranging from 1 to 29 years after harvest) for different variables and often occurred earlier for trees with greater height at time of harvest. These critical points do not necessarily coincide with the cessation of persisting suppression, however, since post-harvest growth patterns also reflect current influences on growth. The comparison of observed basal area and diameter growth with model predictions isolated persisting suppression effects. The effects of suppression on basal area and diamete...

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations23
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207