MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2201515017 · doi:10.5558/tfc2011-011

Longer-Term Volume Trade-offs in Spruce and Jack Pine Plantations Following Various Conifer Release Treatments

2011· article· en· W2201515017 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Frederick W. Bell, Jennifer Dacosta, Margaret Penner, Andrée E. Morneault, Al Stinson, Bill Towill, Nancy Luckai, John A. Winters

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryOntario Forest Research Institute
FundersMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsBorealPinus <genus>TaigaForestryBiologyRange (aeronautics)EcologyAnimal scienceEnvironmental scienceBotanyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assessed growth responses 10 years post treatment for 31 combinations of site, species, and treatments from six studies in Ontario, Canada, to determine if conifer release treatments increase gross total conifer volumes but decrease gross total stand volumes in boreal forests. Treatments included single and multiple herbicide application or motor-manual and mechanical conifer release. Treatment effects on 10 th -year gross total preferred conifer and total stand volumes ranged from −49% to +556% and −71% to +116%, respectively, compared to the untreated controls. We projected net merchantable stand volumes (NMV) from 10 years post treatment to 60 years of age. These projections indicate that NMV of preferred conifers at age 60 could range from 7.4 m 3 ha −1 to 232.4 m 3 ha −1 . The variation in observed and predicted volumes can be attributed to site characteristics, tree species, ecology, and treatment efficiency.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.208 · 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.

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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207