MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2736818461 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0134

The role of advanced regeneration at time of partial harvest on tolerant hardwood stands development

2017· article· en· W2736818461 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Gabriel Danyagri, Sharad Kumar Baral, Monique Girouard, H. Adégbidi, Gaëtan Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonNorthern College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYellow birchRegeneration (biology)HardwoodForestrySilvicultureDiameter at breast heightMapleStand developmentForest managementEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryBiologyBotanyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In tolerant hardwood forests of eastern North America, multiple-aged silvicultural systems rely on advanced regeneration to restock the forests. Evaluation of the long-term influence of advanced regeneration on the mature stand is critical for improving management practices. We used a retrospective approach to evaluate the influence of advanced regeneration present at the time of harvest on the current (2012) stand structure and the quality of the growing stock. The study was carried out in partially harvested stands in northwestern New Brunswick, Canada. Trees were sampled from stands with varying degrees of harvest intensities, times since harvest, and site characteristics. Pre-existing advanced regeneration contributed the bulk of trees in the 10–19 cm diameter class across the stands. In stands with low-intensity harvest, the overstory was dominated by sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) that originated as advanced regeneration. In stands with high-intensity harvest, however, yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britt.) pre-existing advanced regeneration dominated the overstory. The probability of sugar maple and yellow birch being acceptable growing stock peaked at a diameter at breast height (DBH) of about 30–40 cm, while other species combined peaked at a DBH of around 20–25 cm. Our results suggest that harvest intensities based on the dominant advanced regeneration composition and harvesting systems that minimize the risk of physical damage to advanced regeneration are required to achieve partial harvesting objectives.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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