MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965074327 · doi:10.1139/x07-158

Regional variation in wood specific gravity of planted loblolly pine in the United States

2008· article· en· W1965074327 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lewis Jordan, Alexander Clark, Laurence R. Schimleck, Daniel B. Hall, Richard F. Daniels

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRegione Piemonte
KeywordsLoblolly pinePinus <genus>Range (aeronautics)ForestryJuvenileDiameter at breast heightCoastal plainEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyPhysical geographyEcologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda L.) is the most important plantation species in the southeastern United States and specific gravity (SG) is its most important wood quality trait. Analysis of annual ring SG of breast height (1.37 m) increment cores from 3957 trees representing 147 plantations across the species natural range showed that ring SG increases with increasing age and varies significantly among physiographic regions. The South Atlantic and Gulf regions had the highest ring SGs, while the Hilly and Piedmont regions had the lowest. Based on ring SG, the juvenile period averages 4.3 years, followed by 8.6 years of transition wood, with mature wood produced by year 13. Whole-core mean SG was significantly higher in the South Atlantic (0.486) compared with the other regions (mean = 0.455), which were not statistically different from each other. Trees from the South Atlantic have significantly higher whole-core SG because they contain significantly more latewood (40.1%) compared with trees growing in other regions (33.8%). Maps indicate that stands in the South Atlantic and Gulf regions have the highest SG at a given age. Stands growing on the northern and western fringe of the natural range of loblolly pine have the lowest whole-core SG.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations102
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207