MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018611411 · doi:10.1139/x02-206

Architecture of silver maple and its response to pruning near the power distribution network

2003· article· en· W2018611411 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeanne Millet, André Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaplePruningCrown (dentistry)Tree (set theory)Position (finance)BotanyMathematicsHorticultureBiologyComposite materialMaterials scienceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The architectural analysis of silver maple (Acer saccharinum L.) in natural environments has revealed the sympodial nature of its growth, the three levels of organization that govern the development of its stems through an alternation of organization plans (hierarchic and polyarchic), as well as the characteristic traits of the three architectural units involved and of the four categories of differentiated axes. The growth responses of silver maple alongside streets were analyzed in four pruning contexts associated with tree position relative to the wires of the power distribution network. Data reveal that with increasing pruning pressure, the percentage of the crown composed of suckers becomes higher, as does their growth rate, indicating a greater disorganization of the structure of the crown. Silver maple is naturally capable of developing a low fork with limbs that have hierarchic development. However, the pruning has promoted the reverse, which is the appearance of a high fork and, after repeated prunings, a more polyarchic development of the crown, increasing the threat that trees represent for wires.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207