MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968216989 · doi:10.1139/x04-013

Characterizing the light environment in Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests using a spatially explicit light model

2004· article· en· W1968216989 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rolf Gersonde, John J. Battles, Kevin L. O’Hara

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanopyCrown (dentistry)Light intensityLeaf area indexEnvironmental scienceEcologyForest structureTree canopyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spatially explicit light model tRAYci was calibrated to conditions in multi-aged Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. To reflect conditions that are important to growth and regeneration of this forest type, we sampled a variety of managed mature stands with multiple canopy layers and cohorts. Calibration of the light model included determining leaf area density for individual species with the use of leaf area – sapwood area prediction equations. Prediction equations differed between species and could be improved using site index. The light model predicted point measurements from hemispherical photographs well over a range of 27%–63% light. Simplifying the crown representation in the tRAYci model to average values for species and canopy strata resulted in little reduction in model performance and makes the model more useful to applications with lower sampling intensity. Vertical light profiles in managed mixed-conifer stands could be divided into homogeneous, sigmiodal, and continuous gradients, depending on stand structure and foliage distribution. Concentration of leaf area in the upper canopy concentrates light resources on dominant trees in continuous canopies. Irregular canopies of multiaged stands, however, provide more light resources to mid-size trees and could support growth of shade-intolerant species. Knowledge of the vertical distribution of light intensity in connection with stand structural information can guide regulation of irregular stand structures to meet forest management objectives.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations54
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207