MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062521830 · doi:10.5558/tfc80687-6

Soil temperatures and suckering response of trembling aspen (<i>Populus tremuloides</i>Michx.) following disposal of hog on winter-logged cutblocks

2004· article· en· W2062521830 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Timothy S. S. Conlin, Dave Cheyne, J. R. Dymond

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsAlberta Pacific Forest Industries
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceGrowing seasonWoody plantAgronomyHorticultureBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bark and wood residue, commonly referred to as "hog fuel" or "hog," from a portable pulp chipper was deposited on aspen cutblocks in replicated 10 x 10 m treatment plots during winter logging operations in northeastern British Columbia. The treatments emulated disposal of hog under conditions that simulated on-site chipping operations. Three different rates of hog disposal were applied; 34, 68 and 102 kg m-2, and three cutblocks were treated, one each during February of 1997, and March of 1998 and 1999. We originally hypothesized that the deposition of hog would lower soil temperatures in the treated plots and reduce aspen sucker density during the following growing season. However, our observations showed an initial lag in soil warming in the treatments followed by temperature levels that rose above that exhibited in the control plots. Higher soil temperatures were correlated with greater rates of hog disposal. Increased suckering was not observed in response to higher soil temperatures and stem densities decreased as hog application rates increased. Key words: in-woods, on-site, chipping, Populus tremuloides, hog fuel, soil temperature

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207