Effet d'une coupe d'ensemencement et du milieu de germination sur la régénération des sapinières boréales riches de seconde venue du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".