Influence of stocking on radial and longitudinal variation in modulus of elasticity, microfibril angle, and density in a 24-year-old <i>Pinus radiata</i> thinning trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detailed radial measurements of wood properties at four heights (0, 1.4, 5, and 20 m) were taken from 24-year-old Pinus radiata D. Don growing at four final crop stockings (200, 350, 500, and 1100 stems·ha–1). Using these measurements, the objectives of the study were to examine pith-to-bark trends at several heights to (i) determine how stocking influenced modulus of elasticity (MoE), wood density, and microfibril angle (MFA), (ii) quantify the relations among these properties and age at different stocking levels, and (iii) develop a graphical model for MoE across the stocking range. The influence of stocking on all wood properties was primarily expressed through a highly significant interaction between age and stocking. Wood properties in the highest stocking treatment diverged from those in the lowest stocking treatment at tree age 5 to reach a maximum difference of 92 kg·m–3 (488 vs. 580 kg·m–3) at tree age 18 for density, –5.7° (29.2° vs. 23.5°) at tree age 10 for MFA, and 5.1 GPa (12.1 vs. 17.2 GPa) at tree age 20 years for MoE. Graphical predictions from the model show greatest gains in MoE at high final crop stocking to occur over the lower part of the stem.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".