of a Complex Stand in the Interior Cedar-Hemlock Zone of British Columbia: 40-Year Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of partial cutting in an immature, complex stand in the Interior Cedar--Hemlock zone are analyzed 40 years after treatment. Three partial cutting treatments --- improvement cut, diameter-limit cut, and salvage cut --- were carried out in southern British Columbia. The results are presented for individual trees and the entire stand. Partial cutting had little effect on gross increment but a large effect on net increment over the 40-year period. The study demonstrates that partial cutting can be used to recover anticipated mortality. Partial cutting did not appear to increase the incidence of root rot, nor did it alter the pattern of ecological succession in the stand. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This experiment was established by Michael Stewart, and was maintained and measured over the years by Keith Illingworth, Chris Thompson, and John Pollack. The assistance of Tom Braumandl in ecologically classifying the study area, of Frank van Thienen for doing most of data compilation and graphics, and of Peter Ott in the statistical analyses is gratefully acknowledged. Karsten Holmsen's provision of a copy of his the sis is greatly appreciated. Critical reviews provided by Ian Cameron, Tom Johnston, Ken Mitchell, John Pollack, Ralph Wmeron, Tom Johnston, Ken Mitchell, John Pollack, Ralph-33(P is located on 23 of Pope & Talbot Ltd., and their assistance and co operation is also gratefully acknowledged. Funding for the 1990 plot assessment was provided by the Canada British Columbia Forest Resource Development Agreement ( ). The 40 year measurement was funded by Forest Renewal BC. iv CONTENTS Abstract iii Acknowledgements iv
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".