MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976501859 · doi:10.1139/x08-062

Aerobiology of <i>Pinus taeda</i> pollen clouds

2008· article· en· W1976501859 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Claire G. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPollenPinus <genus>Perennial plantCanopyBotanyBiologyGerminationAerobiologyLoblolly pinePollen sourceHorticultureEnvironmental sciencePollination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Better knowledge of aerobiological properties of pollen clouds is needed for pines and other woody perennials because these properties shape the predictive accuracy of spatially explicit pollen dispersal models. Four properties were experimentally measured in this study using processed Pinus taeda L. (loblolly pine) pollen as well as pollen concentration and viability data collected from an 18-year-old P. taeda plantation. Results showed that P. taeda pollen had a settling or terminal velocity value of 2.1 cm·s –1 ; that daytime pollen count from a plantation was sparse, reaching a maximum of 1480 grains·m –3 at peak pollen shed; and that pollen concentration showed no vertical gradient above or below the plantation’s canopy. Pollen sampled above and within the canopy had comparable germination rates. Surprisingly, a low concentration of viable Pinus spp. pollen was present during nighttime. Study results added further to the idea that P. taeda pollen has a higher nuisance value than either Zea mays L. (maize) or Agrostis stolonifera L. (creeping bentgrass) pollen because of its low terminal velocity value, persistent viability, and perennial production.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

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

Citations35
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207