Differences in forest composition in two boreal forest ecoregions of Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In order to describe and compare the post‐fire succession patterns of the two ecological regions (mixed‐wood and coniferous ecoregions) of northwestern Quebec, 260 forest stands were sampled with the point‐centred plot method. The mixed‐wood ecological region belongs to the Abies balsamea‐Betula papyrifera bioclimatic domain whereas the coniferous ecological region belongs to the Picea mariana‐moss bioclimatic domain. In each plot, tree composition was described, surficial deposits and drainage were recorded, and fire history was reconstructed using standard dendro‐ecological methods. Ordination techniques (Correspondence Analysis and Canonical Correspondence Analysis) were used to describe the successional patterns of forest vegetation and to correlate them with the explanatory variables. The results showed the importance of surficial deposits, the time since fire and the ecoregion in explaining the variation of stand composition. Abies balsamea tends to increase in importance with an increase in time since fire, and this trend is more pronounced in the mixed‐wood region. Even when controlling both for surficial deposits and time since fire, differences in successional trends were observed between the two ecoregions. As all the species are present in both ecoregions and as they are all observed further north, our results suggest that both the landscape configuration and fire regime parameters such as fire size and fire intensity are important factors involved in these differences.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".