MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415815492 · doi:10.5558/tfc2025-018

Contemporary Issues in Québec’s Temperate Forest — Part 1: Profile of the Forests

2025· article· en· W4415815492 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Guillemette François, B. Orloff Steve, Ouimet Rock

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeechYellow birchTemperate climateDeciduousTemperate deciduous forestMapleTemperate rainforest

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a series of papers presenting the main issues for Québec’s temperate forest arising from the multiplicity of rapid environmental and socioeconomic changes. This first paper presents a brief profile of Québec’s forests to establish a basis for the reflections presented in the remaining papers. Compilations show that the area dominated by deciduous species typical of the Northern temperate zone accounts for 8.8% of the province’s total forest, and that these species are also found mixed with coniferous species on 4.9% of the territory. The disturbances affecting these forests are generally more partial than severe. The most abundant species include shade-tolerant hardwoods such as sugar maple ( Acer saccharum Marsh., 152.4 Mm 3 ), red maple ( Acer rubrum L., 141.5 Mm 3 ), yellow birch ( Betula alleghaniensis Britt., 135.6 Mm 3 ) and American beech ( Fagus grandifolia Ehrh., 27.5 Mm 3 ). A demographic analysis shows that populations of the first 3 species have declined slightly in recent decades, whereas the American beech has tended to proliferate. Sugar maple and American beech are likely to become more abundant toward the northern boundary of their range, possibly due to climate change. However, beech bark disease may hinder the progression of the American beech in Québec.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry Chronicle→Same topicForest Insect Ecology and Management→French-language works237,207→