A comparison of gap characteristics in mixedwood old-growth forests in eastern and western Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canopy gaps play an important role in the dynamics of old-growth forests, although it is not well known how gap dynamics differ among regions. To further our understanding of natural gap dynamics in mixedwood forests, this study compares mixed stands located in eastern (Gaspésie region) and western (Témiscamingue region) Quebec. We tested whether the gap fraction in mixedwood stands was similar in these two regions. Data from field transects were used to characterize current canopy gaps, and aerial photos were used to contrast gap characteristics before and after the most recent spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana Clem.) outbreak, which occurred from 1973 to 1991 in Gaspésie and from 1972 to 1984 in Témiscamingue. The current gap fraction was found to differ between the two regions: it varied from 2% to 48% with an average of 25.6% for the Gaspésie region and from 24% to 52% with an average of 36.6% for the Témiscamingue region. While the last spruce budworm outbreak coincided with a significant increase in canopy openings in the Témiscamingue region (p = 0.047), no such effect was observed in Gaspésie. These results suggest that the temporal pattern of small-scale disturbances can vary among regions, even when similar forest types are compared.
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) | 0.001 | 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".