MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021502901 · doi:10.1139/x05-055

Effects of tree size and position on pipe model ratios in Scots pine

2005· article· en· W2021502901 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Frank Berninger, Lluís Coll, Petteri Vanninen, Annikki Mäkelä, Sari Palmroth, Eero Nikinmaa

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsScots pinePinus <genus>ForestryTree (set theory)BotanyMathematicsBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate how the foliage mass to wood area ratios depend on tree and stand characteristics of previously collected data from Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Our analysis allowed a separation of the relationship between stem and branch cross-sectional areas and the relationship between the branch cross-sectional area and foliage mass. We studied how these relationships varied within and between stands. The lowest site fertility class had a higher foliage mass to stem area ratio than better sites. The relative height of a tree in the stand (Φ) was the major factor that determined the variation in the relationship between the branch cross-sectional area and the stem cross-sectional area. Models based on absolute height or tree diameter were usually weaker. Models based on Φ were simpler, since no other variables were able to explain between-stand variation in the presence of Φ. We were able to predict changes in the branchiness of the tree but not in the foliage mass supported per unit of branch area.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

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

Citations47
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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