Biomass of trees sampled across Canada as part of the Energy from the Forest Biomass (ENFOR) Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the early 1980’s, thousands of trees were destructively sampled across Canada by the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) as part of the ENergy from the FORest research (ENFOR) program with the objective to produce regional biomass equations for the most common tree species. The sampling was overseen by researchers in each of the CFS’s five regional establishments. In the early 2000’s, following a request by Canada’s National Forest Inventory, the original ENFOR data was recovered from regional archives, assembled and homogenized for the purpose of creating national biomass equations for Canada’s most common tree species. The equations were published in two installments. The first (Lambert et al, 2005), covered all of Canada except British Columbia for which the ENFOR data had not been recovered at the time of publication. The second (Ung et al, 2008), contains equations for the British Columbia-specific species, and modified equations for other Canadian tree species that had also been sampled in British Columbia. These publications also contain detailed information about the original tree sampling and sample processing and the original ENFOR reports. This dataset contains the oven dry mass of four separate tree compartments for nearly 9,000 trees belonging to 33 different species. The four compartments are: stem wood, stem bark, branches, and foliage and twigs. Results of compilation, calculations and corrections are also contained in this dataset.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".