MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987622377 · doi:10.1139/x08-090

Calibrating jack pine allometric relationships with simultaneous regressions

2008· article· en· W1987622377 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Robert Schneider, Frank Berninger, Chhun-Huor Ung, Pierre Y. Bernier, D. Edwin Swift, S.Y. Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsFPInnovationsUniversité du Québec à MontréalNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasal areaBiomass (ecology)Crown (dentistry)AllometryTree allometryPinus <genus>MathematicsEnvironmental scienceTree (set theory)BotanyRange (aeronautics)Biomass partitioningForestryBiologyEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Allometric equations for estimating foliage biomass, sapwood area, and branch basal area from tree diameters and crown lengths for jack pine ( Pinus banksiana Lamb.) in eastern Canada were calibrated using mixed models. A first model is presented that relates branch foliage biomass to branch diameter and relative position within the crown. These results show that a branch’s foliage biomass is inversely proportional to its depth within the crown. At the tree level, foliage biomass was found to be proportional to crown length and to vary with stem age and slenderness. Pipe model parameters (sapwood area and branch basal area to foliage biomass) were also calculated. The sapwood area to foliage biomass parameter is proportional to stand density, whereas branch basal area to foliage biomass is constant. The tree-level allometeric models were calibrated using a mixed-effects seemingly unrelated regression to account for between-model correlations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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