MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409625806 · doi:10.1093/forestry/cpw012

Adjusting harvest rules for red oak in selection cuts of Canadian northern hardwood forests

2016· article· en· W2409625806 on OpenAlexaffabout
Juliane Laliberté, David Pothier, Alexis Achim

Bibliographic record

VenueForestry An International Journal of Forest Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasal areaFagaceaeJavaHardwoodForestryDiameter at breast heightBiologyHorticultureAgroforestryGeographyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To enhance the vigour and quality of high-graded hardwood stands, the removal of low-vigour trees is often prioritized during harvesting operations. However, northern red oak (Quercus rubra L.) is rarely affected by defects that are indicative of imminent decline and, therefore, are less likely to be marked for harvesting. Consequently, the red oak volumes harvested during recent years were considerably lower than the estimated annual allowable cut in the public forests of Quebec, Canada. We used data from Quebec's forest inventory to identify variables associated with low-vigour red oak trees. Three groups of explanatory variables were formed to take into account tree size descriptors, inter-tree competition and stand descriptors. Logistic regression revealed that the probability of occurrence of northern red oak of low vigour increased with increasing tree diameter at breast height and dominance. Also, low-vigour oak trees were more likely to be found in stands in which total red oak basal area was low. A cut-point analysis indicated that the maximum diameter threshold for harvesting red oak ranged between 34 and 46 cm. These criteria could help forest managers formulate species-specific tree-marking rules that integrate the need to increase the red oak component in the harvested volume to a level that is closer to the annual allowable cut volume while maintaining stand vigour.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestry An International Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207