White spruce<i>(Picea glauca)</i>restoration in temperate mixedwood stands using patch cuts and enrichment planting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of gap-based silviculture and enrichment planting was tested in temperate mixedwood forests in eastern Canada. Four different sizes of canopy opening or patch cuts were applied to six stands in the maple–birch domain of Quebec. We evaluated the influence of opening size, cardinal quadrant within the opening, and distance from the forest edge of openings on white spruce height and ground-level diameter (GLD) five years after enrichment planting. At ≥5 m from the edge, initial canopy transmittance was generally >60% in all four canopy treatments. White spruce seedling height and GLD were lower within 10 m from the edge, and generally increased where understory light levels were higher. Seedling survival, height, and GLD in the smallest opening (0.05 ha) were comparable or higher than those found in relatively larger openings. The 0.05-ha opening that more closely emulates natural canopy gaps of temperate mixedwood forests provided satisfactory seedling development, and is therefore compatible with a gap-based stand dynamics approach to management of mixedwood stands in Quebec.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".