Stand-replacing windthrow in the boreal forests of eastern Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The frequency of stand-replacing windthrow has rarely been evaluated over large spatio-temporal scales in boreal forests. This study examines stand-replacing windthrow that occurred within a forested area of 3 061 000 ha, both at the regional scale and at the scale of individual windthrow events. We specifically examined windthrow that covered at least 5 ha and for which mortality affected >75% of pre-windthrow canopy cover. At the regional scale, we found that windthrow affected, on average, 0.0255% of the area per year between 1971 and 2000. Logistic regressions indicate that stand age was the most important predictor variable at this scale, with severe windthrow less likely to occur in relatively young stands (<75 years). At the scale of individual windthrow events, slope direction was the most important predictor variable, with slopes facing the wind affected more. However, this factor was not significant at the regional scale probably because wind direction varied from one windthrow event to another. Overall, our results suggest that stand-replacing windthrow is difficult to predict and integrate into regional-scale forest management scenarios because it is primarily associated with the random occurrence of exceptional windstorms, while other biotic and abiotic variables play a relatively marginal role.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".