MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modelling Forest Succession Under A Harvest Regime In Mixed Stands In Quebec, Canada

2017· other· en· W6945898483 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionTSG101Gestational periodHyporeflexiaDiafiltrationDysgeusiaArticular cartilage damage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding forest regeneration over large-scale and under harvesting regime is essential for natural resource management. In this study, we used a dataset from a network of monitoring plots in the regions of Bas-Saint-Laurent and Gaspu00e9sie, in Quebec, Canada, as a real-world case study. Based on statistical models, we combined different techniques into an approach that predicts forest succession under harvesting. Firstly, we fitted a binomial model to predict regeneration after harvesting. Once a regeneration was predicted, a gamma model was fitted to estimate the stocking. Forest composition before and after harvest, as well as climatic and topographic variables, were used as explanatory variables. The models were evaluated and validated, and the results showed the potential of the approach to provide predictions of forest succession in the area of study. We observed that topography strongly influenced regeneration and stocking. The results also revealed the temporal evolution of post-harvest forest composition in terms of stocking. This modeling approach should overcome actual challenges reported by managers in the study regions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0410.023
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0100.030
Open science0.0150.011
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.246 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library)French-language works237,207