MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043043874 · doi:10.1139/x01-128

Measuring and modelling the crown and light transmission characteristics of juvenile aspen

2001· article· en· W2043043874 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Bradley D. Pinno, Victor J. Lieffers, Kenneth J. Stadt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrown (dentistry)UnderstoryCanopyLeaf area indexAllometryJuvenileBasal areaBiologyEnvironmental scienceForestryAtmospheric sciencesBotanyEcologyGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crown dimensions, crown leaf areas, and leaf area densities were determined on individual trees in 96 juvenile Populus tremuloides Michx. stands in central Alberta, Canada. Crown radius, height, leaf area, and leaf area density were well explained by stem diameter at 30 cm (D 30 ). Leaf area index, estimated using the LAI-2000, reached a maximum of 4 m 2 ·m –2 in some stands by age 9 and decreased after age 25. Leaf area indices for the same stands, estimated by allometric relationships, were greater than 7 m 2 ·m –2 . Horizontal overlap between adjacent tree crowns declined from 68 to 38% of crown width with increasing average D 30 from 1.5 to 15.0 cm. These data were used to calibrate MIXLIGHT, a spatially explicit light transmission model, to predict the range of light conditions in the understory of juvenile stands. Light predictions were validated in 18 additional plots in which light transmission was measured. Measured light transmission ranged from 4 to 68% of above canopy light among sites and from 16 to 53% within a mapped site. MIXLIGHT predicted transmission well for average stand light levels (R 2 = 0.80). For individual positions within the mapped stand there was a strong relationship between predicted and observed light (R 2 = 0.92), but there was underprediction at high light and over at low light.

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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations43
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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