Stand structure governs the crown collisions of lodgepole pine
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
We investigated tree sway and crown collision behavior of even-aged lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) stands of different structure in Alberta, Canada, to examine how these factors might affect loss of leaf area as stands mature. The Two Creeks stand (TC) had high density and slender trees, while the Chickadee stand (CH) had stout trees. The TC stand was then thinned (TCT) to reduce the stand density. For each stand, simultaneous tree sways of a group of 10 trees were monitored with biaxial clinometers during wind speed of 5 m/s (canopy top). Crown collisions were reconstructed by combining sway displacement of individual trees with their respective crown dimensions. Comparing the sway statistics between stands with contrasting mean bole slenderness (TC and CH) indicated that more slender trees have greater sway displacements, faster sway speeds, and a greater depth of collision. Disturbance by thinning increased sway displacements, sway speeds, and depth of collisions at TCT. Tree sway patterns were circular in shape and not aligned with wind direction, but patterns were elongated after thinning. This demonstrates the high frequency of crown collision experienced by stands with slender trees and supports the notion that crown collisions result in empty space between crowns of trees.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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