MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987108374 · doi:10.1139/x04-190

The effect of time and site on incidence and spread of pruning-related decay in plantation-grown <i>Eucalyptus nitens</i>

2005· article· en· W1987108374 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karen Barry, M.F. Hall, CL Mohammed

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Centre for International Agricultural Research
KeywordsEucalyptus nitensEucalyptusPruningYield (engineering)HorticultureBotanyHarvest timeMathematicsEnvironmental scienceBiologyAgroforestryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative information on stem decay in eucalypt plantations grown for solid wood products, with consideration of the effect of site, pruning, and spread of decay with time, is required for the prediction of harvest yield and quality. A trial at three Eucalyptus nitens (Dean & Maiden) Maiden plantations in Tasmania revealed that the effect of time on the number and size of decay columns was substantially greater than the effect of site or of whether trees were pruned or not. Length of decay columns was 3.4-fold greater on average for the trees assessed 5.5 years after pruning than at 1 year. All decay columns in pruned trees were restricted to the knotty core, and the amount of decay-free clearwood increased over time. A controlled wounding trial showed that decay in sapwood was not significantly different in length with site but was mainly determined by the fungal species used. Ongoing research to monitor the spread of decay in pruned plantation-grown E. nitens will be important to enable prediction of the future impact of decay on harvest yields of solid wood products.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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