Résistance comparée de l'épinette blanche et du sapin baumier au renversement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information on eastern Canadian tree species vulnerability to windthrow is scarce. Some statements on relative species vulnerability have been made but they rely on empirical observations, which are often difficult to generalize. In this context, a study was conducted to compare the overturning resistance of balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) and white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) on a mesic site. To establish which tree characteristics would best explain the critical turning moment, simple linear regressions were calculated using tree dendrometric data. The best regressions were obtained with stem weight. With this variable, resistance to overturning did not differ between the two species. Only regressions involving total height showed a significantly greater resistance for white spruce. This difference can be explained by a difference between the species in heightdiameter relationships. For a similar height, spruce has a greater diameter, involving a higher stem weight and thus a greater resistance. Decay did not play a major role in our experiment as trees with external defects were excluded. Our results suggest that to minimize losses from windthrow, silvi cultural treatments on mesic sites should try to increase the proportion of trees of either species with the lowest height/diameter ratio.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".