MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163209850 · doi:10.1139/x02-031

Initiation of an old-growth Douglas-fir stand in the Pacific Northwest: a reconstruction from tree-ring records

2002· article· en· W2163209850 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Linda E. Winter, Linda B. Brubaker, Jerry F. Franklin, Donald Q DeWitt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWestern HemlockTsugaDouglas firUnderstoryCanopyThinningForestryStand developmentDendrochronologyBiologyGeographyBotanyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used tree-ring records to reconstruct the stand initiation of an old-growth Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) stand in the western Cascade Range of southern Washington. All tree-ring samples were prepared and crossdated. Following a stand-replacing fire, the stand initiation period lasted from 1500 to 1540, with gradual filling-in of growing space over this period. All sampled Douglas-fir were initial colonizers, establishing (at stump-height) 1500–1521 under open conditions. A small number of the sampled western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) were also initial colonizers. Growing space filled as tree crowns widened, and by 1540, closed forest conditions had developed. At this time, Douglas-fir were spaced about 3.5 m from equivalent competitors (ca. 800 trees/ha). In the centuries following canopy closure, considerable natural thinning of the initial colonizers occurred, but the canopy never opened enough again to allow further Douglas-fir establishment. Surviving Douglas-fir developed deep crowns despite the narrow initial spacing, and without epicormic branching from the bole. Most western hemlock that were canopy trees in 1992 established after 1540, originating in the understory. This reconstruction provides an example that may be useful where management policies emphasize the development of old-growth structures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations75
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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