A Comparison of the Time Required for Two Methods of Selecting Site Trees in Juvenile Stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In British Columbia, the largest diameter tree is used as a site tree for estimating site index. Some forest practitioners feel that in young stands it would be easier to select the tallest tree as a site tree. To test this hypothesis, we established fifty 0.01 ha sample plots and timed the selection of both the largest diameter tree and the tallest tree in each plot. Although the difference was not statistically significant, it took less time to select the largest diameter tree than the tallest tree, and in both cases it was less than 5 minutes. The slope of the plot influenced the time it took to locate the tallest tree but not the largest diameter tree. In 60% of the plots, the largest diameter tree was also the tallest tree. When the largest diameter tree was not the tallest tree, the estimated site index from the tallest tree was higher than that from the largest diameter tree. Whichever method of selecting site trees is used, it should be applied throughout the life of the stand. North. J. Appl. For. 20(3):101–103.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".