MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050540230 · doi:10.1139/b00-125

Influence de la densité du couvert forestier sur le développement architectural de jeunes chênes sessiles, <i>Quercus petraea</i> (Matt.) Liebl. (Fagaceae), en régénération forestière

2000· article· en· W2050540230 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Éric Nicolini, Daniel Barthélémy, Patrick Heuret

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanopyQuercus petraeaFagaceaeForestryBasal areaBotanyBranching (polymer chemistry)BiologyGeographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growth and branching patterns of the main axis of 6-year-old sessile oak, growing in a natural regeneration in the north of France, were analysed each year retrospectively according to three increasing canopy density conditions: large gap, small gap, and dense canopy. Increasing gap size is associated with an increase in the total height, basal diameter, branching probability, and global polycyclism rate of the trees. At the growth unit or annual shoot level, from dense canopy to large gaps these botanical entities also show an increase in their total length, number of nodes, polycyclism, and branching rate as well as mean number of branches and mean internode length. A discussion of our results revealed some endogenous features of growth and branching patterns in young sessile oak trees. It is also shown that increasing canopy density generally tends to reduce the expression of the endogenous architectural sequence of differentiation of young sessile oak trees. Young trees growing below dense canopy thus seem to be "delayed" in their sequence of differentiation and appear to be in a "waiting" status, whereas young trees growing in large gaps exhibit an architecture very similar to trees growing in nurseries under nonlimiting growth conditions.Key words: architecture, Quercus petraea, growth, morphology, canopy density.

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 score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations19
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207