A proposed framework for developing an integrated growth and yield monitoring system for Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A province-wide growth and yield (GY) monitoring program, composed of three data collection systems, is proposed for Alberta for the main purpose of verifying GY predictions for various stand types. The first system, based on the 20-km grid proposed for the National Forest Inventory, is recommended for collecting monitoring data on GY predictions for untreated, natural-origin stands. A denser, 10-km grid is recommended for the second system for monitoring GY predictions for untreated, post-harvest stands. The third system is designed for monitoring GY predictions for silviculturally treated stands. The sample plots for the third system will be randomly selected from eligible stands. To enable comparison of site index estimates between natural-origin and post-harvest stands, paired plots are recommended whenever possible in the second system. In the first phase, 500 installations each for untreated natural-origin and post-harvest stands, and 250 installations for silviculturally treated natural-origin and post-harvest stands, are proposed. Detailed plot designs are presented, along with the planned implementation strategies. Key words: growth and yield monitoring, natural-origin stands, post-harvest stands, silviculturally treated stands, paired plots, site index comparison
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".