MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069639662 · doi:10.1139/x05-021

Snag longevity under alternative silvicultural regimes in mixed-species forests of central Maine

2005· article· en· W2069639662 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sean M. Garber, John P. Brown, Duncan S. Wilson, Douglas A. Maguire, Linda S. Heath

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSnagLongevityWildlifeForest managementEcologyHabitatCoarse woody debrisForestryEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predictions of snag longevity, defined here as the probability of snag survival to a given age, are key to designing silvicultural regimes that ensure their availability for wildlife and form an important component of carbon flow models. Species, diameter at breast height, stand density, management regime, and agent of tree mortality were assessed for their effect on snag longevity in a long-term silvicultural study on the Penobscot Experimental Forest in central Maine. Snag recruitment and fall data from USDA Forest Service inventories between 1981 and 1997 were analyzed using parametric survival analysis. A Weibull model fit the data best, indicating a significant lag time followed by rapid fall rates. Half-times varied among species, with Thuja occidentalis L. having the longest (10 years) and Picea species the shortest (6 years). Snag longevity was significantly greater with increasing diameter and decreased with increasing stand density. Agent of mortality and silvicultural treatment were also significant. Two models were developed for estimating probability of snag survival over time, one that included predictor variables unique to the silvicultural systems study on the Penobscot Experimental Forest and one using predictor variables available in most standard inventories. Snag survival models can easily be incorporated into comprehensive forest dynamics models to facilitate estimates of wildlife habitat structure and carbon flow.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations84
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207