MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050986326 · doi:10.5558/tfc76235-2

Leaf Area Density as an urban forestry planning and management tool

2000· article· en· W2050986326 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
W. A. Kenney

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrban forestUrban forestryKey (lock)ForestryLimit (mathematics)Urban areaForest managementJurisdictionAgroforestryGeographyEnvironmental resource managementBusinessEnvironmental scienceEcologyMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of the benefits that we derive from urban forests are directly or indirectly related to the leaf area of the forest. If we are to consider these multiple benefits at the level of the forest, the use of Leaf Area Density (LAD) provides some advantages over other often used measures. Since many factors in the urban landscape can limit leaf area, Potential Leaf Area Density (PLAD) can provide a measure of the upper limit to leaf area density. Using these two measures, urban forest planners and managers can integrate many of the issues associated with broader aspects of the structure and benefits of the forest under their jurisdiction. Some planning, policy, and educational applications of LAD and PLAD are discussed. Key words: urban forestry management and planning, leaf area 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

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

Citations23
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207