Croissance juvénile comparée de deux générations successives de semis d'épinette noire issus de graines après feu en forêt boréale, Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare juvenile (012 years) height growth pattern of dominant mature trees from two virgin black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) forests established during the 19th century (1870) to that of young dominant black spruce seedlings newly regenerated following a 1983 fire on the same sites. The pattern was reconstructed by measuring the distance between terminal bud scars on young seedlings, and by precise counting of growth rings by cross-dating from the collar, which was identified by anatomical features, for mature trees. New seedlings growth was significantly higher than that of mature trees. Seedlings were almost twice as high as mature trees after 12 years of juvenile growth. Assuming that mature trees were dominant during their juvenile growth phase, we put forward the hypothesis that juvenile height growth of mature trees would have been affected by the combined action of spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem)) and colder climatic conditions than those presently observed. Also, young seedlings juvenile height growth may have been favored by nitrogen soil enrichment along with more favourable climatic conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".