MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060156045 · doi:10.1139/x01-103

Spatial distribution of injuries to Norway spruce advance growth after selection harvesting

2001· article· en· W2060156045 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsThinningPicea abiesCrown (dentistry)Basal areaForestryPreharvestLoggingSoftwoodSpatial distributionKarstLogistic regressionEnvironmental scienceHorticultureBiologyMathematicsGeographyEcologyStatisticsBotanyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Injuries and mortality to advance growth (saplings) after selection harvesting was studied in 17 multistoried Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) stands. Harvest removals ranged from 33 to 67% of initial basal area. Four of the stands were harvested with a motor-manual method (chain saw and skidding with farm tractors; M–FT). The remaining stands were harvested with single-grip harvesters and forwarders (H–FW). In each stand, injury rates were evaluated on a 24 × 48 m plot, located between the centre lines of two parallel strip roads that were spaced 24 m apart. All logging teams had at least 5 years of experience in clear-cutting and thinning operations. The trees to be removed and the strip road centre lines were marked prior to harvest. Mortality varied from 5 to 51%, whereas total injury (injured + dead saplings) varied from 17 to 76%. Mortality and injury levels were generally highest on H–FW plots. Crown reduction and leaning stems were the most frequent types of injury, regardless of operating method. Injury rates increased with sapling height with the H–FW method, whereas the opposite was found on M–FT plots. Saplings without preharvest damage in the form of top or leader defects had a higher probability of being injured than saplings with such damage in stands harvested with the M–FT method. A similar difference was not found on H–FW plots. A logistic regression model shows that the spatial risk of injury depends on the interaction between forest condition factors and operational characteristics. Forest condition factors influencing the risk of injury are sapling height and the location of saplings relative to larger residual trees and strip roads. Corresponding operational characteristics are operating method and harvest intensity.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it