Natural regeneration of white spruce in aspen-dominated boreal mixedwoods following harvesting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In some boreal forests sites, there are considerable amounts of natural regeneration of white spruce ( Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) after logging, even without silvicultural treatments to encourage establishment. We assessed the factors controlling the amount of this regeneration 8–15 years postharvest on previously aspen-dominated ( Populus tremuloides Michx.) boreal mixedwood sites. We surveyed 162 transects across 81 cutovers, exploring the effects of mast years, season of harvest, distribution of seed trees, weather conditions around the time of harvest, and abundance of grass or woody vegetation on white spruce regeneration. Substantial amounts of naturally regenerated white spruce were found; however, sites with no seed trees had virtually no spruce regeneration. Average stocking was 7% (percentage of 9 m2plots along a transect across a cutover that had at least one seedling), ranging from 0% to 62%. Stocking levels were higher in cutblocks that had been harvested in the summer, prior to seedfall of a mast year, and where there was a seed source within 60 m. Stocking was lower when conditions were cool and wet the year before and 2 years after harvest and when the site contained extensive cover of grass or woody vegetation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".