Succession après épidémie de la tordeuse des bourgeons de l'épinette (<i>Choristoneura fumiferana</i>) dans des sapinières boréales pluviales de seconde venue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.)) outbreaks, Baskerville's model (G.L. Baskerville. 1975. Spruce budworm: super silviculturalist. For. Chron. 51: 138-140), referred to as the cyclic model, is generally accepted as one of the best established regeneration models in wet boreal fir stands typical of northeastern America. According to that model, old virgin fir stands killed by the insect are replaced by other fir stands. In this study, we wanted to check if the cyclic model would work with wet boreal fir stands originating from harvest and having reached the felling age (50-60 years old) observed in Quebec. The study set up after the last budworm outbreak (1974-1987) shows that, although coniferous regeneration is abundant, the seedling bank is obviously immature: young and small seedlings, empty microsites. In most cases, the regeneration is codominated or dominated by deciduous species, which may bring about the development of a deciduous stand. Thus, the cyclic model does not seem suited to describe dynamics of second-growth boreal fir stands when it is kept in a premature state (<50-60 years old). These stands may not be as resilient as virgin ones, which are characterized by ecological rotations longer than 90 years.[Translated by the Journal]
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 | 0.001 | 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".