Comparing structural attributes in uneven-aged managed and unmanaged sugar maple stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used 11 silvicultural trials in forests dominated by sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) to compare the development of structural attributes between unmanaged stands and stands subjected to two selection cuttings. Results showed that managed stands had significantly lower amounts of large live and dead trees, lower downed coarse woody debris (CWD) volume and lower density of large trees with wildlife cavities compared to unmanaged stands. Despite these differences, both managed and unmanaged stands had sufficient amounts of large trees and large trees with wildlife cavities to maintain excavator bird habitat based on minimum target guidelines from the literature. In both managed and unmanaged stands, minimum target guidelines to emulate old-growth conditions were not met: at least 30 live trees ha−1 >49.0 cm in diameter at breast height, and at least 11 m3 ha−1 of downed CWD volume with large-end diameter >44.0 cm. We discuss management options to promote the development of structural attributes in managed, uneven-aged sugar maple stands.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".