Twenty-year assessment of four tree species planted in the mountain hemlock zone of coastal British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns about low seedling survival and poor growth in plantations in montane areas resulted in a study to assess the field performance of amabilis fir (Abies amabilis (Dougl. Ex Loud) Dougl. Ex J. Forbes), noble fir (Abies procera Rehd.), yellow cedar (Chamae-cyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach) and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carrière). Seedlings were planted on six sites within the Mountain Hemlock zone of coastal British Columbia. The most recent results, based on a field assessment completed 20 years after the study was started, are presented. Little variation was noted among seedling stock types or between fall and spring planting. Seedling survival was greater than 78% for all four species. Although the sites were initially considered similar, large differences in productivity and species response on the six sites are now evident. Key words: silviculture, high-elevation forestry, montane forests, reforestation, seedling establishment, Abies amabilis, Abies procera, Chamaecyparis nootkatensis, Tsuga mertensiana
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".