MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320226899 · doi:10.5558/tfc2014-015

Growth dynamics of successive post-fire cohorts of black spruce: Is site potential reduced?

2014· article· en· W2320226899 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Damien Côté, Carlo Lupi, R. Gagnon, Daniel Lord, Hubert Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)Université du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
KeywordsTaigaBlack spruceWoodlandForestryGeographyReforestationEnvironmental scienceEcologyBorealForest regenerationCrown (dentistry)Forest coverSecondary forestPhysical geographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Black spruce is one of the main commercial species in boreal forests of North America. It usually forms large and single-species natural stands in eastern Canada, yet in recent years, parts of this area have undergone forest cover regression and the conversion of closed-crown forests to open lichen woodlands, partly due to successive disturbances and regeneration accidents. We studied two successive post-fire cohorts growing at the same site, for which a clear forest cover regression trajectory has already been demonstrated, to assess possible changes in the site potential. The Wilcoxon nonparametric test found significant differences in mean diameter and height growth between cohorts, compared by cambial age, generally with higher mean values for the most recent cohort. There were no indications of growth reduction between the previous and the current cohorts. This paper sets the ball rolling for a discussion on the pertinence of reforestation in this type of recently established open formation, where growth potential (as expressed by diameter and height) seems, at least, maintained.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207