Comparaison des caractéristiques des gros chicots entre une sapinière primitive et une sapinière aménagée sur la péninsule gaspésienne, Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Snags (i.e., dead standing trees), and more particularly those of larger dimensions, are recognized as playing a major role in the maintenance of forest biodiversity. This study aimed to describe the characteristics of large snags in a primeval balsam fir forest in the Gaspé Peninsula (Quebec) and to compare them with those of an adjacent area composed of mature second-growth balsam fir stands. For snags ≥20 cm in diameter at breast height (DBH), mean density reached 51 snags/ha in the primeval forest and 24 snags/ha in the managed forest. The distribution of snags among DBH classes was similar in both areas. However, well-decayed snags made up a larger proportion of the snags in the primeval forest than in the managed forest. The proportion of snags with evidence of woodpecker feeding was higher in the managed forest than in the primeval forest. To ensure temporal and spatial continuity of snags in different decay stages, some stands could be left untouched for several rotations, and single snags could be kept or created in logged areas.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".