MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170961421 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2014-0429

Operational biomass recovery of small trees: equations for six central Ontario tree species

2014· article· en· W2170961421 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Matt Thiel, Nathan Basiliko, John P. Caspersen, Jeff Fera, Trevor A. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsOntario Forest Research InstituteNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of TorontoLaurentian UniversityFPInnovations
FundersNatural Resources CanadaMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)Environmental scienceRange (aeronautics)Diameter at breast heightForest inventoryTree allometryForestryTree (set theory)TOPSAgroforestryEcologyMathematicsGeographyForest managementBiologyBiomass partitioningAzimuth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate estimates of the amount of biomass that can be recovered at the roadside are needed to make informed decisions about whether to implement an increased utilization harvesting system to supply additional bioenergy feedstocks. Current estimates of recovery are based on total aboveground biomass equations that do not always account for the volume lost to the unharvested stumps or to tops and branches broken during forestry operations. The study took place in a white pine (Pinus strobus L.) mixedwood forest at the Petawawa Research Forest in central Ontario. Equations to describe recoverable biomass were developed from 371 cut and skidded trees, which ranged from 3 to 24 cm in diameter at breast height, across six species. For each species and diameter size class, we evaluated the difference between estimates produced by locally developed equations and those from published equations produced for other locations and forest types. Our recovered biomass estimates were generally higher than the Canadian national averages but within the observed range of published values from across North America. We report that small trees are recovered nearly in their entirety, with little breakage and loss during operations. The high degree of variability among estimates produced by the various equations poses one of the biggest challenges in accurately estimating roadside biomass in an operational setting.

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)0.001
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 score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207