MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172127226 · doi:10.1139/x06-140

Fates of live trees retained in forest cutting units, western Cascade Range, Oregon

2006· article· en· W2172127226 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Posy E. Busby, Peter B. Adler, Timothy L. Warren, Frederick J. Swanson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsSnagWindthrowDead treeForestryClearcuttingSilvicultureGirdlingFellingGeographyNatural forestRange (aeronautics)Coarse woody debrisBasal areaBiologyEcologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Live trees, standing dead trees, and downed logs have been retained in some forest harvest sites in the Pacific Northwest to fulfill various ecological objectives. To assess the fates of retained trees following partial cutting of mature forests in the central western Cascade Range in Oregon, we inventoried standing live and dead trees and toppled trees in 21 cutting units in 1993 and 2001. In 1993, 1–10 years after cutting, an average of 65% of the initially retained trees (average of counts for all sites) were alive and standing, 12% had been toppled or topped by wind, 13% had become snags by natural processes, and 10% were converted to snags by management action, including cutting, blasting, girdling, and inoculation with fungi. By 2001, when cutting-unit ages ranged from 9 to 18 years, 54% of the retained trees were alive and standing, 10%–21% had been toppled or topped by wind, 11%–22% had become snags by natural processes, and 14% had been converted to snags by management action. The highest levels of mortality occurred at sites with abundant intentional snag creation and (or) prescribed fire following harvest. The rate of mortality due to windthrow declined over time, possibly because the remaining trees were more windfirm.

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)0.001
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations28
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207