The NEBIE plot network: Highlights of long-term scientific studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The NEBIE plot network is a stand-scale, multi-agency research project designed to compare the ecological effects of a range of silvicultural treatments in northern temperate and boreal forest regions of Ontario, Canada. While research on silviculture intensities has been previously conducted, the NEBIE plot network is at a larger scale, and covers a wider range of intensities in a variety of northern temperate and boreal forest types. Details about experimental design, treatment designs and research sites, are presented in a companion paper which is published in this edition of The Forestry Chronicle. The operational scale of treatment plots allow for assessment of a variety of forest values. We used a criteria and indicator approach to organize long-term research studies on the network sites, with the goal of providing scientific findings that would inform forest policy. Pre-treatment, and 2-, 5-, and 10-year post-harvesting data have been collected. These initial data add to existing information on the effects of intensification of silviculture on biological diversity, forest productivity, ecosystem health and vitality, soil and water resources, contribution of enhanced forest management global carbon cycles, and long-term multiple socio-economic benefits of northern forests.
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 | 0.100 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".