Western white pine development in relation to biophysical characteristics across different spatial scales in the Coeur d'Alene River basin in northern Idaho, U.S.A.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have assessed tree development beneath canopies in forest ecosystems, but results are seldom placed within the context of broad-scale biophysical factors. Mapped landscape characteristics for three watersheds, located within the Coeur d'Alene River basin in northern Idaho, were integrated to create a spatial hierarchy reflecting biophysical factors that influence western white pine (Pinus monticola Dougl. ex D. Don) development under a range of canopy openings. The hierarchy included canopy opening, landtype, geological feature, and weathering. Interactions and individual-scale contributions were identified using stepwise loglinear regression. The resulting models explained 68% of the variation for estimating western white pine basal diameter and 64% for estimating height. Interactions among spatial scales explained up to 13% of this variation and better described vegetation response than any single spatial scale. A hierarchical approach based on biophysical attributes is an excellent method for studying plant and environment interactions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".