MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2272067440 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2015-0303

No seed zone effects on the survival, growth, and stem form of Pacific silver fir (<i>Abies amabilis</i>) in Britain

2016· article· en· W2272067440 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Gary Kerr, Victoria Stokes, Andrew Peace, Alan Mark Fletcher, Sam Samuel, Hamish Mackintosh, W. L. Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsGeographyForestryProductivityRange (aeronautics)SilvicultureBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis Douglas ex J. Forbes) was first introduced to Britain in 1830 but has not been widely planted and occupies a minute part of the forest estate. The results of six experiments established in the uplands of Britain examining material from 30 collection sites in 14 seed zones clearly demonstrate that its potential has not been recognised. The trials were assessed after 28 years and show that Pacific silver fir has the potential to be as productive as other common species options. There was little variation in performance between the 14 seed zones, and future seed collections could be carried out within a wide geographical range, including mainland British Columbia and Vancouver Island and the Olympic Mountains and western Cascades of Washington. The silvicultural characteristics of the species mean that it could be used more widely to diversify forests in Britain both as a plantation species and in the wider use of continuous cover management. More work is justified to determine its susceptibility to Annosum root rot (Heterobasidion annosum (Fr.) Bref), confirm its productivity on sites with rainfall below 800 mm·a–1 and (or) with a high peat content, and provide more detail on its wood properties.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→