MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021110410 · doi:10.3390/f5061163

Wood Density-Climate Relationships Are Mediated by Dominance Class in Black Spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.)

2014· article· en· W2021110410 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wei Xiang, David Auty, Tony Franceschini, Mathew Leitch, Alexis Achim

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiUniversité LavalLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack spruceDominance (genetics)Climate changeEnvironmental scienceEcologyForestryBiologyGeographyTaiga

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationships between climate and wood density components, i.e., minimum ring density, maximum ring density and mean ring density have been studied mainly in dominant trees. However, the applicability of the findings to trees of other dominance classes is unclear. The aim of this study was to address whether climate differentially influences wood density components among dominance classes. X-ray densitometry data was obtained from 72 black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.) trees harvested in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. Dominant, co-dominant and intermediate trees were sampled and the data analysed using mixed-effect modelling techniques. For each density component, models were first fitted to the pooled data using ring width and cambial age as predictors, before monthly climatic variables were integrated into the models. Then, separate models were fitted to the data from each dominance class. In general, the addition of climatic factors led to a small but significant improvement in model performance. The predicted historical trends were well synchronized with the observed data. Our results indicate that trees from all dominance classes in a stand should be sampled in order to fully characterize wood density-climate relationships.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207