Tenth-year survival and size of underplanted seedlings in the Oregon Coast Range
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study initiated a two-aged forest stand structure by underplanting 50-year-old stands, primarily of Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco var. menziesii) and Douglas-fir – western hemlock ( Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.), thinned to 19–33 m2/ha on interior and coastal sites in the Oregon Coast Range. Douglas-fir, grand fir ( Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl.) (interior site only), western hemlock, and western redcedar ( Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don) were planted following thinning either uniformly or in gaps of 0.06 or 0.1 ha. Understory vegetation treatments included (i) a preharvest site preparation herbicide application and an untreated control at both sites and (ii) a postharvest herbicide release treatment at the interior site. Planting conditions and stock at the interior site were not ideal, so survival was adjusted for first-year mortality. Adjusted 10 year survival ranged from 27% to 56% for Douglas-fir, 47% to 65% for western hemlock, 61% to 80% for grand fir, and 78% to 96% for western redcedar. Tenth-year survival at the coastal site ranged from 79% to 92% for Douglas-fir, 61% to 75% for western hemlock, and 67% to 86% for western redcedar. All species grew moderately well beneath the lowest-density overstories, and size was better within gaps than matrices for most species. Understory site preparation improved size for most species. Browsing on Douglas-fir and western redcedar impacted size on both sites.
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".