Stand dynamics of mixed red alder conifer forests of southeast Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stand structure and dynamics were evaluated in mixed red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.) conifer forests of southeast Alaska. We assessed stand development, tree density, total basal area, diameter distribution of live and dead trees, height distribution of live trees, and mean diameter of all and largest conifers in 40-year-old red alder conifer stands that developed following logging. Forty-five plots were established in nine stands sampled across a com po si tional range of 0%86% alder. Alder height growth was initially rapid then slowed considerably, whereas conifer height growth was initially slow then rapidly increased with conifers now being 49 m taller than associated alders. Most alder diameters were 2030 cm and conifer diameters were more variable with numerous small (310 cm) and a few large (>25 cm) trees. Total stand basal area significantly decreased (p = 0.013) with increasing proportions of alder, but density of live and dead trees was not closely associated with alder composition. More than 60% of all dead trees died standing regardless of size or species. Overall, these mixed red alder conifer stands provided more heterogeneous structures than pure conifer stands, with more even diameter distributions, multiple canopy layers, and similar numbers of large diameter conifers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".