The eastern boreal old-growth balsam fir forest: a distinct ecosystem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this project was to assess the importance of pristine forests in maintaining the botanical biodiversity of the humid boreal balsam fir forest of eastern Canada. The study was based on a comparative analysis of silviculturally mature second-growth stands and pristine forest stands at two stages of development (senescent and old growth) in the Gaspé Peninsula. The structure and composition of the stands was described, and the abundance of structural attributes evaluated. The communities of nonvascular plant species (mosses, liverworts), lichens, and saprophytic fungi were compared. The study demonstrated that the pristine forest landscape studied was composed largely of old-growth and senescent stands. Old-growth forests are differentiated by their irregular structure. The results regarding nonvascular plant species, lichens, and saprophytic fungi show higher species diversity in old-growth forests, corresponding to higher habitat diversity. Species assemblages were comparable between the pristine forests, but different from those of second-growth stands. Rare species are found more frequently in the old-growth forests. The results indicate that the old-growth balsam fir stands of the Gaspé Peninsula constitute critical habitats for maintaining a large number of species threatened by the gradual disappearance of primeval stands.Key words: forest management, biodiversity, old-growth forest, humid boreal fir forest, nonvascular plants.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".