The effect of age and sample position on eucalypt tree-ring width series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examine within-tree variance in proportionate tree-ring width (prw) and correlation between radii (rwt), samples (rbh), and trees (rbt) in four eucalypt species common throughout eastern Victoria, Australia. In all species and sites studied, rwt and rbh differ significantly between cambial-age and sample-height classes. Differences between rwt and rbh are nonsignificant between tree-age or radial-azimuth classes. Significant differences in prw exist between cambial-age, tree-age, and sample-height classes and between radii on different compass bearings. Whilst differences in rwt and rbh between cambial-age classes appears to be the result of variation in mechanical demands with increasing stem size, stem deformation may account for differences between sample-height classes. Variation in prw appears to be due to stem geometry, stem eccentricities associated with root buttressing, and tree-age dependent variation in the rate of radial growth. No significant differences in rbt exist between sample-height classes. Analysis of the expressed population signal statistic indicates that site-level and species differences are far more significant than sample position on variance within tree-ring width series collected from eucalypts. We discuss the implications of the current work for eucalypt dendroclimatology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".