MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107787609 · doi:10.1139/x08-018

Competitive success of natural oak regeneration in clearcuts during the stem exclusion stage

2008· article· en· W2107787609 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Robert C. Morrissey, Douglass F. Jacobs, John R. Seifert, Burnell C. Fischer, John A. Kershaw

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersDepartment of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsFagaceaeBiologyAbundance (ecology)ForestryNatural regenerationSilvicultureEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We sampled dominant and codominant regeneration on 70 clearcuts, 21–35 years old, on the Hoosier National Forest in southern Indiana, USA, to evaluate influence of site variables on the competitive success of natural oak ( Quercus L.) over time. Collected data was compared with data collected on these same sites 20 years prior. Regression tree analysis indicated aspect, natural region, and oak abundance in preharvest stands had the greatest influence on competitive success (relative density, RD) of oak species in the latter sampling, which was then examined across sites as defined by these three variables. Oak RD increased across all mid- and some lower-slope positions, sites on which oaks are expected to be replaced by faster growing species. Drought events between sampling periods apparently contributed to a decline in RD and vigor of yellow-poplar ( Liriodendron tulipifera L.), a major competitor for growing space. Stump sprouts contributed 45% of dominant oak stems. Mean oak diameters were not significantly lower than those of other species groups, with the exception of yellow-poplar in younger stands and at mid-slope positions. Oak species drought tolerance, relative to more mesic species found on these sites, and the large proportion of oak stump sprouts likely contributed to oak competitive success.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations49
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207