MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062402288 · doi:10.2307/3236849

The coarse‐root system of mature <i>Populus tremuloides</i> in declining stands in Alberta, Canada

2001· article· en· W2062402288 on OpenAlexaffabout
Annie DesRochers, Victor J. Lieffers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vegetation Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Pacific Forest IndustriesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRoot systemRoot (linguistics)BiologyBotanyDendrochronologyTaprootPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The coarse‐root dynamics of ramets of Populus tremuloides (aspen) were investigated with respect to persistence of the original root connections (roots of parent trees from which the ramets originated), the time of establishment of new roots at the base of the stem and the fate of the communal root system after death of individual trees. Parts of the root systems of three declining stands of aspen ramets were hydraulically excavated. From each stand, sections of all structural roots were collected at the base of live and dead trees and were analysed using dendrochronology techniques. Parent roots were identified in the root system of every tree. The trees initiated new structural roots shortly after suckering. Live roots were often connected to the stump of dead and decayed trees. Grafting was common, especially at or near the stumps. Death of trees along the parent roots over time did not seem to favour the entry of significant decay, nor promote breakage of the original root connections. Instead of becoming independent of the parent root system the ramets incorporated the parent roots into their own root systems, remaining interconnected.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations80
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vegetation ScienceSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207