MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082146614 · doi:10.1139/x10-152

Testing the environmental prediction hypothesis for mast-seeding in California oaks

2010· article· en· W2082146614 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Walter D. Koenig, Johannes M. H. Knops, William J. Carmen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAcornMast (botany)SeedlingBiologyFagaceaeCropGerminationForestryEcologyAgronomyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyzed 29 years of acorn production by five species of California oaks (genus Quercus ) to test the hypothesis that trees produce large seed crops prior to wet years, conditions facilitating seedling germination and survival. The mean crop of three of the species correlated positively and nontrivially with the following year’s rainfall, but none was statistically significant. Including the acorn crop 1 and 2 years earlier yielded several significant relationships between the acorn crop and future rainfall, but none held up when applied to a second, independent site. Across individuals, acorn production by 7% of trees correlated significantly with subsequent rainfall. Although these trees differed from other trees in several characters, differences were not sufficient to discriminate between trees that correlated significantly with subsequent rainfall from those that did not. We conclude that acorn production by California oaks does not forecast wet years and does not support the environmental prediction hypothesis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207