MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Hardwood Reforestation and Restoration

2019· book· en· W3164783783 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniel Gagnon, Benoît Truax

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Taiwan UniversityHydro-QuébecFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNational Science CouncilMinistère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs
KeywordsReforestationAgroforestryForest managementBiodiversityHardwoodClearcuttingGeographyEcologyRegeneration (biology)Environmental scienceForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hardwood-dominated temperate forests (mostly in Eastern North America, Europe, North East Asia) provide valuable renewable timber and numerous ecosystem services. Many of these forests have been subjected to harvesting or conversion to agriculture, sometimes over centuries, that have greatly reduced their former extent and diversity. Natural regeneration following harvesting or during post-agricultural succession has often failed to restore these forests adequately. Past harvesting practices and the valuable timber of some species have led to a reduction in their abundance. The loss of apex predators has caused herbivore populations to increase and exert intense browsing pressure on hardwood regeneration, often preventing it. Particularly important are fruit, nut and acorn bearing species, because of their vital role in forest food webs and biodiversity. Restoring hardwood species to natural forests in which they were formerly more abundant will require a number of forest management actions (e.g., resistant hybrids, deer exclosures/protectors, enrichment planting, underplanting, etc.). Similarly, reforesting areas that were once natural forests will also require new silvicultural knowledge. Global warming trends will intensify the need for interventions to maintain the diversity and function of temperate hardwood forests, as well as for increase hardwood reforestation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.017

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→