MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071086831 · doi:10.1139/x10-203

Site index of Sitka spruce (<i>Picea sitchensis</i>) in relation to different measures of site quality in Ireland

2011· article· en· W2071086831 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Niall Farrelly, Áiné Ní Dhubháin, Maarten Nieuwenhuis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTeagasc
KeywordsEdaphicSite indexEnvironmental scienceWater contentEcologyHydrology (agriculture)Physical geographyForestrySoil waterSoil scienceGeographyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To examine the relationships between Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) site index and site quality variables, we sampled 201 Sitka spruce stands covering the entire range of sites supporting the growth of the species in Ireland. Site index varied significantly with climate and climate surrogate variables, some site quality variables, soil physical and chemical properties, edatopes (combinations of soil nutrient and moisture regimes), rotation types, provenance, and fertilizer regimes. We developed a series of models to predict site index using climate, site, soil physical and chemical properties, edaphic variables, and management factors as predictor variables. Soil nutrient regime (SNR) exhibited the strongest relationship of all variables examined in the study, explaining 51% of the variation in site index, with site index increasing with increasing SNR. We found that edaphic variables of soil moisture regime and SNR produced the best prediction of site index. The species showed the best development on fresh to very moist sites, with rich to very rich soil nutrient regimes. We also developed a composite model explaining 62% of the variation in site index and an elevation zone model (&gt;300 m) explaining 74% of the variation in site index.

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)0.003
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 score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations40
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207