MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4231120320 · doi:10.24124/2008/bpgub521

Regeneration of lodgepole pine after wildfire in mountain pine beetle-killed stands in north-central British Columbia.

2008· dissertation· en· W4231120320 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scott R. Scholefield

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsLibrary and Archives Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMountain pine beetlePinus contortaDendroctonusRegeneration (biology)Disturbance (geology)Abies lasiocarpaEcologyForestryGeographyCompetition (biology)Environmental scienceBiologyBark beetleBark (sound)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ecological disturbance from wildfire (2004) on ~10,000 hectares of forests near the Kenny Dam presented a unique opportunity to study the natural and artificial regeneration in burned mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) infested stands in north-central British Columbia. Mountain pine beetle (MPB) has been documented as a natural disturbance agent that may precede wildfire in lodgepole pine forests (Pinus contorta var. latifolia). The objectives of this thesis were to i) characterize lodgepole pine regeneration and related micro-site conditions associated with wildfire, ii) identify limitations for germination, survival and recruitment of natural and artificial regeneration in relation to site moisture, fire severity, and vegetative competition, and iii) provide guidance on local operational management of MPB-killed 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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→