White spruce establishment in two boreal Ontario mixedwoods: 13-year results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experiment to investigate techniques for establishing white spruce (Picea glauca [Moench] Voss) in boreal Ontario mixedwood was begun in 1985 in Oates Twp. Eight 25-tree plots were established in each of nine treatments: three mechanical site preparation treatments (none, disk- trenching, and toothed-blading) in combination with three kinds of chemical weed control (none, Velpar L® at the time of planting, and Vision® during the second growing season). The experiment was repeated the following year in the adjacent township of Oswald. The mechanical treatments were applied as planned, but the herbicide treatments deviated somewhat from the plan. Fifth-year results were reported in this journal in 1995. In the eighth growing season, a ground-spray release treatment with Vision® was applied to four randomly selected 25-tree plots in each original treatment. Performance of white spruce after 13 growing seasons was significantly influenced by site preparation: survival averaged 65 and 79% without release in the blading and trenching treatments, respectively, and 22% in the untreated control; with release, survival averaged 74 and 80% in the blading and trenching treatments, respectively, and 24% in the untreated control. Growth was greatest in the bladed treatment, poorest by far in the untreated control. The ineffectiveness of herbicides in these experiments is surprising in view of successes elsewhere. The modest response to release was significant for 13th -year increment. Key words: site preparation, toothed blading, trenching, release
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".