MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110502629 · doi:10.2980/i1195-6860-13-2-219.1

Influence of brushing frequency on birch population structure after felling

2006· article· en· W2110502629 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oksana V. Zhukovskaya, Nina G. Ulanova

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBetula pendulaFellingBetula pubescensTaigaBiologyBotanyPopulationForestryHorticultureGeographyEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

:Populations of Betula pendula and Betula pubescens in felling stands subject to different brushing regimes were studied in the southern taiga forest (Tsentralno-Lesnoi Biosphere Zapovednik, Russia). The stands are 14- and 20 y old and are situated in the Oxalis type of spruce forest. The number of birch saplings, the height and ontogenetic stage (reflecting the biological age) of individual saplings in the community were determined in ten 5- × 10-m plots, five in a 14-y-old stand that had undergone a single brushing event and five in a 20-y-old stand that had undergone three (regular) cleanings. In the 14-y-old stand, birches were more numerous (the total number of birch saplings was 10,800.0 ± 1365.3 stems∙ha-1), saplings were higher (B. pendula: 2.59 ± 0.08 m; B. pubescens: 1.80 ± 0.12 m), and populations were more mature (most B. pendula saplings had changed to tree stage v from bush stage im). The total number of saplings in the 20-y-old stand was 1120.0 ± 338.2 stems∙ha-1, the mean height of B. pendula was 2.47 ± 0.45 m, the mean height of B. pubescens was 1.45 ± 0.14 m, and saplings in immature stages dominated. Natural forest regeneration was dominated by B. pendula, which was almost twice as abundant as B. pubescens in the 20-y-old stand, and three times more abundant in the 14-y-old stand.

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)0.000
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 score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207