MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159971767 · doi:10.1139/x10-009

Influence of precommercial thinning on understory vegetation of young-growth Sitka spruce forests in southeastern Alaska

2010· article· en· W2159971767 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth Cole, Thomas A. Hanley, Michael Newton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderstoryThinningTsugaForestryBiologyGrowing seasonEnvironmental scienceOdocoileusCanopyGeographyAgronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effects of precommercial thinning on the understory vegetative cover of 16- to 18-year-old spruce–hemlock ( Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carrière – Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) stands were studied in seven replicate areas over seven growing seasons postthinning. Vegetative cover was analyzed at the class level, but species-specific effects were examined in relation to their value as food for Sitka black-tailed deer ( Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis Cowan). When compared with unthinned controls, thinned stands (3.6–6.3 m spacing) had significantly greater understory cover. However, all thinned spacings led to similar understory cover. Conifer cover recovered to about two-thirds of its prethinning level within seven growing seasons posttreatment. Understory nonconiferous cover increased during the first 2–4 years postthinning but began to decline with increasing conifer cover during the next 3 years, nearly reaching pretreatment levels by year 7. In unthinned understories, vegetative cover had declined and was significantly lower than that beneath thinned stands. Summer food resource values for deer were increased by thinning. Winter food resource values were increased by thinning for snow-free conditions but were unaffected for conditions when herb-layer forbs were buried by snow.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207