MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1965618415 · doi:10.1139/x09-109

Determining factor of xylem maturation in Eucalyptus grandis planted in different latitudes and climatic divisions of South America: a view based on fiber length

2009· article· en· W1965618415 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Miho Kojima, Fábio Minoru Yamaji, Hiroyuki Yamamoto, Masato Yoshida, Kouichiro Saegusa

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXylemCambiumBiologyEucalyptusLatitudeGrowth rateEquatorBotanyPithGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to determine the factor of xylem maturation in Eucalyptus grandis W. Hill ex Maid. planted in four different latitudes and climatic divisions of South America, based on the pattern of the radial distribution of fiber length. In the plantation closest to the equator, the extent of juvenile wood is determined by distance from the pith and is consistent from tree to tree, regardless of growth rate. In contrast, in the plantation farthest from the equator, xylem maturation is controlled by cambial age and varies from tree to tree, depending on growth rate. To produce as much mature wood as early as possible in E. grandis planted closer to the equator, lateral growth should be accelerated from the early growing stage, because the formation of mature wood starts after a certain trunk diameter is reached. Conversely, in plantations far from the equator, it is necessary to first arrest lateral growth at an early growth stage and then accelerate lateral growth after a certain cambium age is reached.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→