MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999550973 · doi:10.5558/tfc86614-5

Effects of structural retention harvesting on seed production and seed characteristics of old-growth eastern white pine (<i>Pinus strobus</i> L.) stands in northern Ontario

2010· article· en· W1999550973 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
William C. Parker, Thomas L. Noland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsOntario Forest Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerminationBasal areaSeedlingBiologyPinus <genus>AgronomyWood productionSilvicultureForestryHorticultureBotanyAgroforestryForest managementGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seed production and seed characteristics were examined during a mast seeding year in unmanaged, old-growth eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.) stands located in northeastern Ontario and compared with those in adjacent stands partially harvested 16 years earlier using a structural retention system. Seed yields from old-growth stands were comparable to those of mature, second growth white pine stands but seed production assessed relative to unit area (# ha-1) and pine basal area (# m-2) was lower in partially harvested stands. In both unmanaged and harvested stands, seed production rate of trees growing in localized areas of lower pine basal area was higher. Seed characteristics and seed viability did not differ between harvest treatments. Although structural retention harvesting reduced seed production, results suggest that supply and viability of seed are unlikely to limit seedling recruitment in managed or protected old-growth white pine forests. Key words: germination, old-growth forest, partial harvest, seed mass, seed production

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 score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207