MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105019375 · doi:10.5558/tfc2014-071

The impact of early precommercial thinning of dense jack pine (<i>Pinus banksiana</i> Lamb.) stands on the mortality of thinned stems

2014· article· en· W2105019375 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Tadeusz B. Splawinski, Sylvie Gauthier, Yves Bergeron, David F. Greene

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversité du Québec à MontréalCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsThinningForestryJack pinePinus <genus>Stand developmentBorealTaigaEnvironmental scienceSilvicultureHorticultureBotanyBiologyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precommercial thinning of jack pine (Pinus banksiana) stands is a common silvicultural method to control stand density and growth in managed boreal forest stands. If employed too early, vigorous conifer re-growth can reduce the radial growth and potential yield of residual trees, thus requiring additional costly thinning treatments and extended rotation period. We examine thinned jack pine re-growth proportion as a function of remaining branch whorls on the stump of cut stems, and of thinning height following fire and salvage. Four salvaged and precommercially thinned stands in two forest fires that occurred in 1995 in the Abitibi-Temiscamingue region of Quebec were sampled. Significant relationships were identified between the number of branch whorls remaining on individual stems following precommercial thinning and the mortality proportion, and between the number of branch whorls remaining on individual stems following precommercial thinning and mean stump height. We suggest that precommercial thinning in dense jack pine stands be applied between 7 and 10 years following establishment at between 10 cm and 13 cm stump height. In addition, we identify various indicators that foresters can use on-site to better plan thinning operations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207