MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999303776 · doi:10.37099/mtu.dc.etdr/922

ASSESSING SOIL COMPACTION FOLLOWING A WINTER TIMBER HARVEST IN THE WESTERN UPPER PENINSULA OF MICHIGAN

2019· dissertation· en· W2999303776 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rafia Rahman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlash (logging)LoamEnvironmental scienceSoil waterBulk densitySoil compactionCoringSnowSiltHydrology (agriculture)PeninsulaSoil scienceForestryGeologyGeographyGeotechnical engineeringDrillingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harvesting during winter is encouraged as a best management practice to protect soil during logging operations. The western Upper Peninsula of Michigan typically experiences early and persistent snowfall, which insulates the forest floor and prevents soils from freezing. The objective of this study is to assess the effects of slash volume, snow depth, overstory treatment, and machine traffic intensity on soil bulk density following a winter harvest of a northern hardwood forest on cobbly silt-loam soils. The harvest was conducted at the Ford Forest in Alberta, Michigan using cut-to-length harvest systems (i.e. harvester and forwarder) during which the soil remained unfrozen. Four levels of machine traffic (high, medium, low, none) and two levels of overstory treatment (clear-cut and partial cut) were considered within a factorial experimental design. Samples were extracted using coring cylinders and separated into three depths (0-5, 5-10, 10-20 cm) prior to drying, sifting and weighing. Results indicate that bulk density did not differ between the no traffic treatment and low traffic treatment at the 0-5 cm depth. However, soil bulk density for the no-traffic treatment was significantly lower than soil bulk density for the medium and high traffic treatments at the 0-5 cm depth. There was a significant effect for traffic in all depths, fine and full soil, except for the 5-10 fine and full soil (which had a p-value of .06). No significant effects of slash volume or snow depth were detected but there was significant effect of percent rock at each depth.

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 score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207