Root biomass of regenerating aspen (<i>Populus tremuloides</i>) stands of different densities in Alberta
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In north-central Alberta, 12 plots (9 m 2 ) were hydraulically excavated in young trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) stands (510 years old) of different sucker density to quantify the effects of sucker density on the parental root system, on the formation of new roots and on the growth of suckers. All roots were collected and divided into live and dead parental roots and new root categories. Size and age of parent roots at the time of suckering were determined. Total biomass ranged from 1 to 18 t/ha of live roots. Living root biomass was proportional to stand density and leaf area index (LAI). Low-density stands had a higher proportion of dead roots. Suckers in plots with more parental root biomass/sucker had greater height growth. Root/shoot ratios ranged from 0.46 to 3.52 but were not correlated with stand densities. Stands with larger basal area of suckers and greater mean parent root diameter produced more biomass of new roots. This research suggests that young sucker-origin aspen stands support a large underground biomass and that high sucker densities and LAI are required to prevent loss of parental root biomass.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it