MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066672898 · doi:10.1139/b07-120

Influences of climate on the radial growth of lodgepole pine in Alberta

2008· article· en· W2066672898 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Sophan Chhin, Edward H. Hogg, Victor J. Lieffers, Shongming Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Environment and Protected AreasCanadian Forest Service
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceForest Resource Improvement Association of Alberta
KeywordsPinus contortaCypressGrowing seasonPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceDendroclimatologyBiologyClimate changeEcologyPhysical geographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined a network of 17 lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) sites in Alberta in the cordilleran forests along the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains and in western Cypress Hills, using a dendrochronological approach to identify the principal climatic factors that have influenced the historical, regional-scale pattern of radial growth of lodgepole pine. Correlation and regression analysis of the regional growth–climate relationships showed that radial growth was negatively associated with late-summer temperatures, and positively related to the late-summer precipitation totals from the previous growth season. Radial growth also responded positively to winter and spring temperatures, and was negatively related to late winter–early spring precipitation. The results suggested that the lag in response to heat and moisture stress, cold and snowy winters, and the length of the current growing season are important determinants of the radial growth of lodgepole pine in Alberta.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

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

Citations35
Published2008
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207