Regeneration of aspen following partial and strip understory protection harvest in boreal mixedwood forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trembling aspen regeneration was studied in 2 types of partial harvest systems designed to harvest mature aspen but protect immature spruce and encourage natural aspen regeneration. Two partial harvest systems, where the residual aspen was either left in strips or was dispersed uniformly, were compared to traditional clearcuts. After the first and second year since harvest, aspen sucker density and growth was similar between the 2 partial harvests, but was much lower than in the clearcuts. However, in the partial cuts the regeneration density was very much dependent on the location relative to residual trees. The density of regeneration was inversely related to the basal area of residual aspen; however, sucker height was inversely related to the basal area of the residual spruce. Although there were adequate numbers of suckers after partial harvest, their viability and contribution to the long-term productivity of these mixedwood stands is not clear. Key words: silvicultural systems, forest management, residual canopy, white spruce, Populus tremuloides, Picea glauca, traffic
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 | 0.000 | 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".