MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072453590 · doi:10.5558/tfc76643-4

Effet d'une coupe d'ensemencement et du milieu de germination sur la régénération des sapinières boréales riches de seconde venue du Québec

2000· article· en· W2072453590 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Patricia Raymond, Jean‐Claude Ruel, Marius Pineau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbies balsameaBalsamSeedbedGerminationSeedlingNatural regenerationForestryRegeneration (biology)Environmental scienceBiologyHorticultureBotanyAgronomyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stand regeneration failures, sometimes observed in rich second growth balsam fir stands, prompted a study in 1991 to assess the effects of the shelterwood cutting system on regeneration of balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.), white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) and paper birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh). The factorial experiment design (split-plot) includes forest cover reduction (0% and 25% of basal area) in main plots and germination substrate (mineral soil, litter removed and control) in subplots. Results of five growing seasons showed that germination substrate was the main factor determining first-year seedling establishment, and that cover reduction became important for seedling survival and long-term establishment of the three species. A 25% canopy reduction combined with mineral seedbed treatment resulted in the best regeneration densities of the three species. Thus far, the results demonstrate the importance of combining humus disturbance to seed cutting in order to achieve regeneration goals set for the future stand. Key words: shelterwood cutting system, balsam fir, white spruce, paper birch, regeneration, seed cutting, germination substrate

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.204 · 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.

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

Citations15
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207