MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391874898 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2023-0224

Are operational plantations meeting expectations? A large-scale assessment of realized versus anticipated yield in eastern Canada

2024· article· en· W4391874898 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Martin Barrette, Isabelle Auger, Nelson Thiffault, Julie Barrette

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceUniversité LavalMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsNatural Resources CanadaMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYield (engineering)Scale (ratio)ForestryEnvironmental scienceAgricultural economicsAgroforestryGeographyEconomicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest plantations play an increasingly important role in meeting global demand for wood. They usually have higher yield than naturally regenerated forests. Thus, plantations can support economically viable wood production, enable forest conservation elsewere, help mitigate climate change by contributing to carbon sequestration and increase forest resilience and resistance to biotic and abiotic stressors. If yield of plantations is not as high as anticipated, then their use could generate important sustainability issues. There are still major gaps in our understanding of the factors that influence yield, even with respect to black spruce, white spruce, and jack pine, three of the most commonly planted tree species in northeastern North America. Our objective was to evaluate the yield of forest plantations of these species over a 416 000 km2 region that was representative of northeastern North American forests. Contrary to our prediction, realized yield of operational plantations was consistently lower than anticipated. Site index and competition both played a significant role in determining the yield of plantations. In the context of uncertain realized yield of operational plantations, we emphasize the necessity of relying on adaptive management to determine harvest levels that are compatible with sustainable management objectives.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicForest Biomass Utilization and Management→French-language works237,207→