Stability of the large tree component in treated and untreated late-seral interior ponderosa pine standsThis article is one of a selection of papers from the Special Forum on Ecological Studies in Interior Ponderosa Pine — First Findings from Blacks Mountain Interdisciplinary Research.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ponderosa pine ( Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex P. & C. Laws.) stands with late-seral features are found infrequently, owing to past management activities throughout western North America. Thus, management objectives often focus on maintaining existing late-seral stands. Observations over a 65 year period of stands with no past history of harvest showed substantial ingrowth in the smaller diameter classes and elevated rates of mortality among the largest mature trees in the stand. Adjacent stands, with combinations of thinning and prescribed fire, had far fewer high-risk mature trees and generally lower rates of mortality after treatment. Forecasts using individual-tree diameter growth and mortality models suggest that observed declines in these stands with remaining old trees and a dense understory will continue in the absence of any treatment. Increased vigor in thinned stands appeared to be offset by an increase in mortality of large trees when thinning was followed by prescribed fire.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".