Jack pine regeneration and crown fires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of crown fires on Pinus banksiana Lamb. regeneration was studied in separate forest- and cone-burning experiments. Nine plots (0.562.25 ha) of jack pine trees near Fort Providence, Northwest Territories, were burned using crown fires to determine the effects of fire intensity, rate of fire spread, depth of burn, and postfire duff depth on seed viability and regeneration. Fire intensities were 36 902 93 476 kW/m, and fire spread rates were 2470 m/min. Depths of burn were low (2.03.6 cm), and postfire duff depths averaged 2.05.5 cm. Postfire seed rain was highly variable (64634 seeds/m 2 ), but seed viability was near 67% on all plots. Jack pine regeneration was also highly variable (779 seedlings/m 2 ). In the cone-burning experiment, the germination rate increased from 41% (unheated cones) to 64% after 10 s of burning but decreased sharply after 30 s. Flame temperature did not significantly affect viability. Cone-burning results suggest that the postfire seed rain originated from the upper canopy, where flame duration was 515 s, and seed in the lower canopy was consumed by fire. Seed rain and regeneration were primarily influenced by understory fine fuel consumption (and therefore, fire intensity), tree height, and live crown base height.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".