Changes in Woodland Use from Longleaf Pine to Loblolly Pine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing evidence suggesting that the United States’ roots are not in a state of “pristine” nature but rather in a “human-modified landscape” over which Native people have since long exerted vast control and use. The longleaf pine is a typical woodland use largely shaped by fires, lightning and by Native Americans. The frequent fires, which were used to reduce fuels and protect themselves from wildfires, enhance wildlife habitats and for hunting, protect themselves from predators and enemy tribes, led to the establishment of the fire dependent and fire tolerant longleaf pine across the southern landscape. In the last 3 centuries however, the range of longleaf ecosystem has been gradually replaced first by agriculture and then by loblolly pine farming. The joint effects of agricultural expansion, intense logging of the longleaf in the late 1800s, expanded fire control since the early 20th century, and subsequent bare-root planting beginning in the 1930s, has permitted loblolly pine to become dominantly established in the south. Longleaf and loblolly pines represent two distinct woodland uses and represent separate human values. This study investigated the change from longleaf pine use to loblolly pine farming in Southern US from perspectives of human values of land and natural resources.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".