MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1994270578 · doi:10.1139/x09-114

Effects of gap size and surrounding trees on light patterns and aspen branch growth in the western boreal forest

2009· article· en· W1994270578 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Fang Ye, Philip G. Comeau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrown (dentistry)TaigaBorealForestryBlack spruceSalicaceaePicea abiesWoody plantEnvironmental scienceBotanyGeographyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vertical and horizontal patterns of light within gaps and expansion of trees into gaps were examined in young stands dominated by trembling aspen ( Populus tremuloides Michx.) in northeastern British Columbia and northwestern Alberta. Lateral growth of branches of aspen edge trees averaged 15.2 cm/year and was similar to crown expansion rates reported for edge trees in eastern North America. Branches growing into gaps were significantly longer than those growing away from gaps and are likely to lead to gap shrinkage and reductions in light within gaps. However, height growth of edge trees was not significantly different from that of trees within the surrounding stands. Models describing relationships between diffuse transmittance and locations within gaps and surrounding stand height were developed in this paper. Sky view angle (SVA) was found to be effective for predicting transmittance to different locations within gaps. When SVA values exceed 1.2 (at the B.C. sites), white spruce ( Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) will receive <40% of full sunlight, which is less than optimal for spruce height growth.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→