MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201042466 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2021-0179

The recurring role of site challenges contemporary theories about regeneration under selection systems in northern hardwoods

2021· article· en· W3201042466 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M.I. Premer, Robert E. Froese

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologyRegeneration (biology)Dominance (genetics)SilvicultureGeographySite selectionEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In naturally regenerated managed forests, silvicultural methods leverage timing and intensity of harvesting activities to align with species-specific reproduction mechanisms. With contemporary emphasis on complex stand structure and diverse composition, there is uncertainty in the continued use of timber-oriented management practices in meeting evolving objectives. In the northern hardwood region of North America, contemporary theory is that selection regeneration systems result in homogenization of structure and composition through increasing dominance of Acer saccharum Marsh. Given the coupling of soils and vegetation in northern hardwoods, trends in site conditions that may be more resilient and (or) facilitative to community diversity may be of value to silviculturists. Remote-sensing products and inventory records were integrated to assess tree communities across site variables in northern Michigan, USA. The results reveal that composition is stabilized by local landforms and that diversity increases with hydrologic catchment area. Time since treatment (1–54 years) appeared negatively correlated with catchment area, reflecting lowlands with high diversity not managed or harvested infrequently, due to equipment access and operational logistics. Broad interpretations of selection regeneration systems may be invalidated by the influence of site conditions not previously accounted for, and the results highlight a novel technique to capture the effect of topography on species assemblages.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207