Understorey plant communities in boreal cutblocks with different sizes and numbers of residual tree patches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of residual tree patch size after harvest on understorey plant communities was investigated in aspen and pine black spruce forests in boreal Alberta, Canada. Three different patch size treatments were created in both study areas; patches amounted to 3% residual merchantable timber in each cutblock. In the aspen study area, species richness was higher in cutover matrix than in preharvest forests and large residual patches. Species richness was larger in small residual patches and the cutovers than in the preharvest forests. In contrast, in pine black spruce stands, species richness did not differ between the preharvest forests, the large and small residual patches, and the cutover matrix; however, lower richness was observed in medium-sized residual patches than in the cutover matrix. In both study areas, significant differences between understorey plant communities in the preharvest forests and those in large, medium-sized, and small residual patches were observed. In addition, large and medium-sized residual patches had understorey plant communities that differed from those in the cutover matrix. If forest managers expect to maintain preharvest understorey plant communities within cutblock boundaries, residual patches need to be larger than those tested.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".