How do trees grow? Response from the graphical and quantitative analyses of computed tomography scanning data collected on stem sections
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
Tree growth, as measured via the width of annual rings, is used for environmental impact assessment and climate back-forecasting. This fascinating natural process has been studied at various scales in the stem (from cell and fiber within a growth ring, to ring and entire stem) in one, two, and three dimensions. A new approach is presented to study tree growth in 3D from stem sections, at a scale sufficiently small to allow the delineation of reliable limits for annual rings and large enough to capture directional variation in growth rates. The technology applied is computed tomography scanning, which provides - for one stem section - millions of data (indirect measures of wood density) that can be mapped, together with a companion measure of dispersion and growth ring limits in filigree. Graphical and quantitative analyses are reported for white spruce trees with circular vs non-circular growth. Implications for dendroclimatological research are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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