MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981148592 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-30-10-1646

Crown condition, needle mass, and sapwood area relationships of Norway spruce (<i>Picea abies</i>)

2000· article· en· W1981148592 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Otto Eckmüllner, Hubert Sterba

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPicea abiesCrown (dentistry)ForestryBotanyHorticultureEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crown-condition assessment, hypothesized to estimate needle losses following damage from several sources, one of which might be air pollution, suffers from the subjective notion of a standard healthy tree. On the other hand, the foliage biomass - sapwood area ratios are reported to depend on a number of factors, e.g., site quality, stand density, crown class, and tree ring width conductivity. The authors hypothesize that early sapwood area might help to even better estimate needle biomass of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) and to help standardize crown-condition assessment. Thirty-six Norway spruce trees at two Austrian sites, from three age-classes, three crown classes, and two crown-condition classes were felled. Needle mass, cross-sectional area, sapwood area, and early sapwood area (i.e., sapwood area excluding latewood) were measured. The results of this study indicate that indeed early sapwood area is a good estimator of foliage, independent of site, age, crown class, and crown condition. ...

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations42
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207