MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116142521 · doi:10.1139/x02-205

Évolution de la structure diamétrale et de la composition des peuplements mixtes de sapin baumier et d'épinette rouge de la forêt primitive après une coupe à diamètre limite sur l'Aire d'observation de la rivière Ouareau

2003· article· en· W2116142521 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mathieu Fortin, Jean Bégin, Louis Bélanger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAfrican Botany and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalsamAbies balsameaYellow birchForestryBasal areaBotanyROUGEHorticultureBiologyGeographyHardwood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from 41 plots, the diameter structure and composition of old-growth mixed stands composed mainly of balsam fir (Abies basalmea (L.) Mill.) and red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.) were characterized. The stand table was organized in five groups of diameter classes, and we characterized the basal area of four tree species in each group. Analysis showed that diameter structure tends toward a reverse J-shaped curve. Red spruce and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britt.) were more abundant among large diameter trees while balsam fir was more abundant among saplings. A comparison with 18 permanent plots from a diameter-limit cutting showed that plots had come back to a structure similar to that of the old-growth forest 47 years after cutting. However, spruce ratios had decreased while those of balsam fir and paper birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.) had increased. Red spruce decrease is not due to a lack of regeneration but to overcutting. Single-tree selection method would be a suitable treatment if aimed at protecting red spruce trees up to a given diameter.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations15
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicAfrican Botany and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207