Comparative Assessment of Natural Regeneration Quality in Two Northern Hardwood Stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selected quality aspects of natural regeneration in gaps were studied in two sugar maple-yellow birch forest stands in Quebec: a selection-cut stand (SC) and a protected old-growth stand (OG). The quality-assessment systems by Sonderman (1979) and Börner et al. (2003) were applied to saplings and poles of sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia Ehrh.) between 2.5‐13.0 m in height to assess stem deviation, forks, the number of live branches, branch diameters, and overall quality. These individual quality parameters, the Sonderman-quality index (QI), and a modified quality index (mQI) were used to illustrate differences in sapling quality between species and stands. Saplings and poles in the OG had fewer forks and fewer live branches of smaller relative branch diameters, resulting in better overall quality compared to the SC. Gap size had no significant influence on individual quality parameters, Sonderman-QI, or mQI class. The combination of both assessment systems into the mQI class allows for a comprehensive evaluation of regeneration quality, which may be used to evaluate the success of silvicultural measures in the context of quality-oriented northern hardwoods management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".