Influence of stand size on pattern of live trees in mixedwood landscapes following wildfire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burned areas and patches of residual live trees were mapped from post-fire aerial photographs of 168 mixedwood stands (a total of 9367 ha), in eight large wildfires in the boreal forest of northern Alberta. The stands were stratified into three size classes: small (<10 ha), medium (10–60 ha), and large (>60 ha).We described the area occupied by single live residual trees, unburned patches of live trees and partially burned patches of live trees within these mixedwood stands. Although results from individual stands were highly variable, there was proportionally more area covered by live residual trees in large fire-killed stands compared to medium stands, which in turn had proportionally more than small stands. For most sizes and types of live tree patches, larger fire-killed stands had a greater proportion of live tree area compared to smaller stands. Results of this study are compared to similar studies and current harvest guidelines. We outline the amount and distribution of live tree patches that would be needed to create harvest areas similar to that found after wildfire. Key words: natural disturbance, wildfire, live residual trees, ecosystem management, forest harvest pattern, boreal mixedwood
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".