Aboveground growth responses of understory <i>Abies lasiocarpa </i>saplings to different release cuts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A white birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.) overstory of a 30+ year old stand was thinned or completely removed, releasing an advance regeneration of subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.). The overstory was clear-cut (T0), thinned to 600 (T600) or to 1200 (T1200) stems/ha, or left uncut (control). Three years after release, understory responses were best demonstrated by decreasing specific leaf area with increasing release level and by changes to height and radial growth increments. Clear-cutting the overstory stalled the height growth in fir for two seasons and radial growth at the tree base for one season. Compared with the control, the 3-year height increment was proportionally greatest in intermediate trees of T600, and this treatment produced the overall best response in height growth. Complete birch removal produced the best radial growth response despite the initial growth check. However, no release treatment significantly affected the whole tree variables (aboveground biomass, height, diameter at breast height (DBH), live crown ratio) within the studied time frame. Shoot silhouette ratios were lowest in the completely released understory trees, while they were similar to those of the controls in all partial-release treatments. Tree sturdiness (height/DBH ratio) was 8090 in most treatments except T0, where it declined to below 80. Despite this improvement, large trees in T0 have been damaged by wind and snow.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".