MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7039686489

Moisture reduction and nutrient retention associated with field-drying forest harvest residues on clearcut sites in Northwestern Ontario, Canada

2012· dissertation· en· W7039686489 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2012
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsNutrientBiomass (ecology)MoistureLeaching (pedology)Nutrient cycleLoggingWater contentEcosystem
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increased utilization of forest harvest residues as supplemental, inexpensive and renewable energy raises two key concerns: 1) continued removal may negatively affect long-term site productivity; and 2) because 50-60% of this material's green weight is water, transportation and burning costs of the green biomass very inefficient. Leaving the harvest residues to passively field-dry in the clearcut is a common forestry practice in the Nordic countries and is also used as a nutrient management strategy. While field-drying, nutrients are retained on site through the processes of physical foliage shedding, leaching and decomposition. The present study investigated the effects of field-drying on moisture reduction and the release of nutrients from black spruce [Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.], jack pine [Pinus banksiana Lamb.] and trembling aspen [Populus tremuloides Michx.] harvest residues. Field-drying plots were established in recent clearcut sites near Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. Trees of each species were felled and the limbs gathered into small biomass piles inside netted enclosures. The piles were left to dry for one year and sampled at regular intervals (0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 48 and 52 weeks) for moisture content, nutrient concentration and percent foliage mass.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University)Same topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207