Selected Nova Scotia old-growth forests: Age, ecology, structure, scoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study of four old-growth stands in Nova Scotia was conducted to document the ecological characteristics of these currently rare Acadian forest ecosystems. Stands were selected to represent the two dominant climax forest types, hemlock–red spruce–eastern white pine, and sugar maple–yellow birch–beech. Data include measurements of age structure, species composition, diameter distribution, basal area, height, coarse woody debris, snags, vertical structure, and canopy condition. All stands were determined to be uneven-aged. Old-growth reference ages calculated for the stands ranged from 164 to 214 years. All stands displayed broad diameter distributions that had peak basal area representation in the 40- to 50-cm diameter classes. Volumes of dead wood ranged from 111 to 148 m3/ha in the softwood stands and from 63 to 83m3/ha in the hardwood stands. Dead wood consisted of approximately one-third snags and two thirds downed coarse woody debris. Measurements from the stands were used to evaluate Nova Scotia's recently developed Old Forest Scoring System. Six stand attributes were rated for a maximum score of 100: stand age, primal value, number of large-diameter trees, length of large-diameter dead wood, canopy structure, and understorey structure. Based on the age attribute, three of the four stands were classed as Mature Old Growth and one was very close, indicating that all are in the shifting mosaic stage of late forest succession. The scores for all stands were relatively high, ranging from 75 to 85, as would be expected from some of the best old-growth stands in the province. Key words: old growth, climax, primal, late succession, uneven-aged, scoring, coarse woody debris, age structure, diameter, Acadian forest, northern hardwood, red spruce, eastern hemlock, white pine, sugar maple, yellow birch, American beech
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".