MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6903250560 · doi:10.1051/forest:2003063/pdf

Net effect of competing vegetation on selected environmental conditions and performance of four spruce seedling stock sizes after eight years in Québec (Canada)

2003· article· en· W6903250560 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsSeedlingStock (firearms)SowingBlack spruceVegetation (pathology)Competition (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

- A study was established in 1993 to determine the response of four black spruce (Picea mariana) and white spruce (P. glauca) stock sizes on two sites located in Québec (Canada), each representing a different type of competing vegetation. At each site, a split-split-plot design with 15 to 17 replicates was used, in which the presence of competition (weedy and bare plots), seedling initial size, and spruce species were assigned respectively to the whole plot, the subplot, and the sub-subplot. Larger initial seedling size provided a greater competitive ability for light and had higher growth rates than the standard stock size for both species. Growth gains from combining plantation of large stock with vegetation control were multiplicative. Non-crop vegetation significantly lowered the seasonal profile of 10-cm depth soil temperature on both sites. This study shows that early release treatment is required on sites dominated by raspberry-hardwood competition complex and planting large spruce stock on such harsh competition sites will help reduce the need for repeated vegetation control.

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 score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)Same topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207