MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972961279 · doi:10.1139/x07-075

Plastic and adaptive response to weather events: a pilot study in a maritime pine tree ring

2007· article· en· W1972961279 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nahúm M. Sánchez-Vargas, Leopoldo Sánchez, Philippe Rozenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut National de la Recherche AgronomiqueEuropean Commission
KeywordsDendrochronologyEnvironmental scienceRegressionBasal areaGrowing seasonForestryAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyEcologyMathematicsBiologyGeographyStatisticsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work proposes a novel approach to describing intraring wood density characteristics as functions of annual weather events. This approach was tested using three different maritime pine clonal experiments, in which X-ray microdensitometry has revealed conspicuous within-ring patterns affecting most of the trees in 1996. This pattern has been interpreted as the variation of tree response to weather-controlled changes of water balance during the 1996 growing season. The level of tree response was estimated using an original norm of reaction obtained from the microdensity profiles. A 1996 site drought index profile was synchronized with the 1996 microdensity profile by pairing conspicuous points of abrupt change in both profiles (breakpoints). Regression of density breakpoints on drought breakpoints describes the norm of reaction of radial increment to water availability, and the plasticity of radial increment to changes in soil moisture is described by the slope of the regression. The slope showed moderate levels of genetic control that depended on the site and could potentially be used as criteria for the evaluation of tree adaptation to weather.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207