MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043977118 · doi:10.5558/tfc80251-2

The effect of fire severity and salvage logging traffic on regeneration and early growth of aspen suckers in north-central Alberta

2004· article· en· W2043977118 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Erin Fraser, Simon M. Landhäusser, Victor J. Lieffers

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSalvage loggingLoggingSuckerRegeneration (biology)ThinningDisturbance (geology)ForestryEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryBiologyEcologyGeographyEcosystemForest ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Density and growth of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) were measured in the first two years following wildfire to determine the effects of: 1) fire severity and 2) salvage logging damage on sucker regeneration. Results indicate that stand leaf area was not affected by fire severity, although the greatest number of suckers was produced following high severity burns. In contrast, plots with the highest level of machine disturbance in the salvage-logging study had 60% fewer suckers compared to the non-trafficked plots. These suckers tended to be smaller and had less leaf area than the non-trafficked plots, resulting in a stand leaf area reduction of up to 75%. This suggests that salvage logging could have a negative impact on the future growth and productivity of regenerating aspen stands. Key words: trembling aspen, regeneration, suckering, leaf area, wildfire, fire severity, salvage logging, machine traffic

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 score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.649

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations48
Published2004
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207