<i>Pinus resinosa</i> product potential following initial spacing and subsequent thinning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A trial was initiated in 1953 to investigate the effect of initial tree spacing on red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.) volume production. Approximately three decades later, in 1982, thinning treatments were added to compare the effects of thinning and initial spacing on volume production. After 45 growing seasons from planting, total volume production (cut + standing volume) mainly was independent of initial spacing and thinning intensity except at the widest (4.3 m +) spacing treatments. Both initial spacing and thinning affected quadratic mean diameter, standing volume and basal area. Knot size was affected by initial spacing with trees at an initial spacing of 3.0 m or wider having a significant number of stems failing to meet utility pole standards due to excessive, large knots. At the time of sampling, 1998, the higher initial densities (1.2 and 1.5 m-spacing) were undergoing significant mortality and falling behind the lower initial spacings in terms of total volume production. In addition, trees at the narrowest spacing were more prone to snow and ice damage. Thinning reduced the time required to meet sawlog and utility pole specifications. The initial spacings ranging from 1.8 to 2.4 m resulted in good growth with high utility pole potential and little mortality. Lower initial spacings required thinning to prevent mortality and maintain good diameter growth. Key words: red pine, density management, volume production, product mixtures
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".