Mountain maple and balsam fir early response to partial and clear-cut harvesting under aspen stands of northern Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is a component of the Sylviculture et aménagement forestier écosystémique project, which examines ecosystem-based forest management strategies in mixedwood boreal forests. Four harvesting treatments, one no-harvest, one clearcut, and two partial cuts (33% and 61% of basal area removed), were applied to even-aged aspen stands according to a complete block design. Mountain maple (Acer spicatum Lamb.) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) early response was examined to understand how they react to and interact with canopy opening. Only in clearcuts was maple's response (increase in growth and density) sustained and significant. Balsam fir suffered from a very slight "growth shock" 1 year after harvesting in both clear-cut and two-thirds partial-cut treatments, but growth and vigour increased with canopy opening during the next 2 years. The first year following harvesting, balsam fir growth was negatively affected by understorey aspen and mountain maple. Our results show that the two-thirds partial harvesting treatment could speed up the conversion of pure aspen stands toward mixedwood.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".