SPATIAL ASPECTS OF BOREAL MIXEDWOOD SUCCESSION AND STAND DYNAMICS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aspen and white spruce mixedwood forests cover a significant portion of the western Canadian boreal forest region. While both species often establish right after a fire disturbance, the faster-growing aspen soon overtops the young spruce. It may take white spruce 60-80 years to grow up through the aspen canopy. As white spruce grows into the aspen canopy, it is subjected to physical abrasion by aspen swaying on windy days. This, along with the reduced light levels can significantly reduce the growth rates and survival of the spruce. The issue of boreal mixedwood management has risen in prominence, with increased use of both aspen for paper fibre and white spruce for lumber, as well as recognition of the ecological benefits of having both species growing together on the same sites. However, viewpoints concerning how to manage these stands often differ between forestry companies that use deciduous versus coniferous trees, and substantial resources are put into manipulating species mixtures early in stand development, without a full understanding of future implications. While previous research on mixedwood forests has helped us
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".