Effects of precommercial thinning on the forest value chain in northwestern New Brunswick: Part 2 – Efficiency gains in cut-to-length harvesting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Green River precommercial thinning trials were established between 1959 and 1961 in naturally regenerating balsam fir (Abies balsamea [L.] Mill.)-dominated stands an average of eight years after overstory removal. Three nominal spacings of 4 ft (1.2 m), 6 ft (1.8 m) and 8 ft (2.4 m) were compared to an unthinned control in six replicate blocks. In the fall of 2008, following completion of the ninth sequential evaluation of the study’s 48 permanent sample plots, three of the six replicates were clearcut harvested using a cut-to-length system; data were collected on harvesting, forwarding and loading efficiency. Largely due to increased average tree size, precommercially thinned stands were associated with improvements in both harvesting and forwarding productivity, proportional to thinning intensity. For example, the nominal 6-ft spacing yielded 30% to 35% gains in harvesting productivity, and 16% to 39% gains in forwarding productivity (p ≤ 0.04), these ranges spanning the different levels of operator expertise and block conditions observed. In total, estimated harvesting costs were $12.58/m 3 in the unthinned stands, compared to $9.10/m 3 in the 6-ft spaced stands (p = 0.02). Such a difference represents a $3.48/m 3 savings, which translates into just over $1000 per ha, based on the gross merchantable volume produced in the 6-ft spaced stands.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".