Early cohort development following even-aged reproduction method cuttings in New York northern hardwoods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We described a general pattern of cohort development following two types of even-aged reproduction methods in northern hardwoods. Three clearcut sites initially had divergent numbers of stems, because of variable amounts of advance regeneration. By 10 years, total stem densities became quite similar across sites. Three sites treated by shelterwood seed cutting lacked advance regeneration. Compared with the clearcuts, seedlings became established at much higher stem densities there, and even early cohort development followed a consistent pattern. By 20-25 years, both the clearcut and shelterwood sites supported 7600-8900 total stems/ha. Stems >=2.54 cm diameter at breast height peaked at about 6000, but by age 15 following clear-cutting, and not until age 20 after shelterwood seed cutting. The time lag likely reflects initial differences in advance regeneration, and possibly other factors between sites. Basal area at the clearcut sites reached 26 m2/ha within about 25 years. At the shelterwood sites it reached 22 m2/ha by age 25. The quadratic stand diameter increased consistently across sites and treatments. Regression models describe changes in numbers of total stems, numbers of saplings, stand basal area, and quadratic stand diameter for each treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".