MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046243496 · doi:10.1139/x10-023

Predicting forest dieback in Maine, USA: a simple model based on soil frost and drought

2010· article· en· W2046243496 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Allan N. D. Auclair, Warren E. Heilman, Blondel Brinkman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrost (temperature)Environmental sciencePopulationMarshForestryUnderstoryAgronomyGeographyBiologyEcologyCanopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tree roots of northern hardwoods are shallow rooted, winter active, and minimally frost hardened; dieback is a winter freezing injury to roots incited by frost penetration in the absence of adequate snow cover and exacerbated by drought in summer. High soil water content greatly increases conductivity of frost. We develop a model based on the sum of z-scores of soil frost (December–February) and drought in summer (May–September) that accurately predicts timing and severity of dieback on sugar maple ( Acer saccharum Marsh.), Betula spp., Fraxinus spp., and red spruce ( Picea rubens Sarg.) in Maine, USA, during 1920–1995. Discrepancies between predicted and actual dieback relate largely to tree population dynamics. Extraordinary levels of dieback on Betula during 1935–1950 occurred under low stress but in mature populations; under high climate stress during 1951–1975, younger surviving Betula proved resistant and showed little dieback. Severe dieback in Acer stands during 1975–1995 may relate to extensive partial cutting, leaving stands open to frost and high water tables. Widespread use of forwarder feller/buncher and wheeled skidders after 1960 commonly left hummocky, irregular surfaces subject to pooling and accelerated frost penetration. Silvicultural applications include modifying harvesting practices to minimize frost complications and use of the model to track and map climatic risk to avoid conditions and locales subject to dieback.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.276
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations31
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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