MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766352801 · doi:10.5558/tfc2017-033

Partitioning risks of tree mortality by modes of death in managed and unmanaged northern hardwoods and mixedwoods

2017· article· en· W2766352801 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
François Guillemette, Martin‐Michel Gauthier, Rock Ouimet

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts
FundersMinistère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs
KeywordsTree (set theory)PrecipitationLoggingDead treeBiologyDemographyForestryGeographyMathematicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used a permanent sample plot network established to monitor the effects of forest management practiced in mature northern hardwood and mixedwood stands in Québec, Canada to address two important questions related to tree mortality: (1) How does partial cutting affect tree mortality? (2) Which variables best explain tree mortality by different modes of death (standing death, uprooting or stem breakage)? Decennial tree deaths were lower after partial cutting than in unharvested plots, but the annual proportion of tree death was similar (1.25%·year -1 ). At the tree level, a risk-product classification demonstrated the strongest evidence on influencing total mortality, followed by species, the presence of a logging injury, and tree size. Annual temperature was the only climatic variable explaining variations in total risk of tree mortality, and always among the first three variables explaining differences among the three modes of death. The risk of standing death also increased with increasing annual precipitation, while the risk of stem breakage and, to a lesser extent, of being uprooted, decreased with increasing precipitation. Additionally, we found strong evidence to support the effect of the potassium/magnesium ratio of the humus layer on the risk of being uprooted. This information is critical to better understand tree mortality processes.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207