MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991026218 · doi:10.1139/x03-113

The soil acidbase status of boreal black spruce stands after whole-tree and stem-only harvesting

2003· article· en· W1991026218 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Nicolas Bélanger, David Paré, Stephen H Yamasaki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack spruceAlkalinitySoil acidificationEnvironmental scienceTaigaAgronomyPicea abiesSoil pHSoil waterCation-exchange capacityAcid depositionForestryBotanyChemistryEcologyBiologySoil scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of different harvesting practices on soil acid–base status was evaluated in black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) forests of Quebec by comparing soil from five pairs of whole-tree and stem-only harvested plots 3 years after harvest. Stem-only harvesting contributed to the enrichment of the exchangeable base cation pool, particularly in the forest floors of the pairs where whole-tree harvested plots showed the highest exchangeable Al3+. In the mineral soil, divergence between treatments was low, perhaps because these acidic soils were strongly saturated with Al3+(about 90%), which did not favour cationic exchange reactions. Although the effects of treatment may not persist over time, improved base cation nutrition may benefit stands during the early stages of development. Over a forest rotation of about 85 years, the estimated loss of alkalinity due to whole-tree harvesting was estimated to be low (less than 20%) when compared with the effect of acidic deposition.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations48
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207