Étude rétrospective de l'accroissement en diamètre du sapin baumier (<i>Abies balsamea</i> (L.) Mill.) et de l'épinette rouge (<i>Picea rubens</i> Sarg.) en peuplements mixtes après une coupe a diamètre limite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diameter growth at breast height of 341 balsam fir and red spruce stems has been reproduced over a time lapse of 50 years following a diameter limit cutting. The available information has been analyzed with a statistical model in which the effects of time, species (two levels), ecological type (three levels) and diameter at harvesting have been tested. Results indicate that balsam fir saplings have higher diameter growths than red spruce saplings, but only in the case of better ecological types. The differences between both species are smaller for stems having a merchantable diameter (dbh > 9.0 cm) at harvesting time. On poor ecological station, red spruce diameter growth is more important than for balsam fir and this, whatever the diameter at harvesting time. On the other hand, as indicated by this analysis, stem diameter at the time of silvicultural treatment constitutes a significant variable in the prediction of diameter growth for red spruce stems, while the effect of this variable is less identifiable for balsam fir. Even if significant, the growth differences between the two species are small. The competition created by the balsam fir regeneration on red spruce saplings is definitely not the cause of the depletion of red spruce in second growth stands.. Key words: red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.), balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.), diameter growth, partial cut, mixed stands, linear model, mixed model
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".