Effects of forest roads on the growth of adjacent lodgepole pine trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of roads on growth of adjacent lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) trees were studied in an area near Williams Lake, British Columbia. Plots were established in a range of stand ages, site qualities, stand densities (stems/ha), stand basal areas (m2/ha), edge aspects, and adjacent road widths. Plots were divided into five zones beginning at the road edge: 0–5 m (zone 1), 5–10 m, 10–20 m, 20–30 m, and 30–40 m (zone 5) from the edge. When the 5 years prior to road establishment were used to scale growth rates, relative tree basal growth rates for zone 1 differed significantly from those for the other zones, with zone 1 rates being 32.1% higher, on average, for 3 to 15 years after the road opening was established. Fewer dead standing trees were found nearest the road edge. Tree bole shapes at breast height were not significantly different among zones, and no significant increases in average basal area per tree or in average height were found. On average, zone 1 had a 31.3% greater stand basal area than zone 5. For a 23.4 m wide road, the increased stand basal area translates to 3.13 m (2 × 31.3% × 5 m for zone 1), or 13.4% recovery of timber losses, if both sides of the road were similarly impacted. This estimate can be improved by using stand basal area to reduce variability.
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 | 0.001 | 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".