MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322746014 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-15988-6_16

Innovative Silviculture to Achieve Sustainable Forest Management in Boreal Forests: Lessons from Two Large-Scale Experiments

2023· book-chapter· en· W4322746014 on OpenAlexaffabout
Miguel Montoro Girona, Louiza Moussaoui, Hubert Morin, Nelson Thiffault, Alain Leduc, Patricia Raymond, Arun K. Bose, Yves Bergeron, Jean-Martin Lussier

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in global change research · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsNatural Resources CanadaUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilvicultureSustainable forest managementTaigaForest managementAgroforestryClimate changeBorealLoggingBiodiversityContext (archaeology)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceForestryClearcuttingGeographyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Clear-cutting has been the dominant harvesting method used in boreal forest silviculture. Reducing the potential negative effects of intensive forestry activities on ecosystems, e.g., the simplification and homogenization of stand structure, requires diversifying silvicultural practices to promote forest resilience in the face of climate change. Priority therefore lies in developing, evaluating, and adapting partial cutting as a potential silvicultural option for ensuring the sustainable management of boreal forests. In this chapter, we summarize the findings of two large-scale experiments conducted in Canadian boreal forests that tested new silvicultural approaches and explore their implications for forest management. We discuss the effects of these treatments on tree growth, tree mortality, regeneration, and biodiversity, and we examine the challenges of existing silvicultural approaches in the context of climate change.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in global change researchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207