MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083901011 · doi:10.1139/x09-091

Chemical pretreatment of Thuja occidentalis tree rings: implications for dendroisotopic studies

2009· article· en· W2083901011 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Robert Au, Jacques Tardif

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsLigninThujaCelluloseBotanyEvergreenDendrochronologyBiologyChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whether or not extractives, lignin, and (or) hemicelluloses, all of which have specific isotopic signatures, should be removed prior to dendroisotopic analysis is still debated. This study reports the range of modern tree-ring δ 13 C values of cellulose from Thuja occidentalis L., a species that has been under-utilized in dendroisotopic research despite its broad distribution and great longevity in North America. The main objective of the study was to recommend a wood component from T. occidentalis to isolate for future δ 13 C dendroisotopic analyses. Annually resolved tree-ring decadal segments common to eight T. occidentalis trees were excised from cross sections and homogenized. The tree-ring decadal segment from each tree was then chemically processed from untreated whole wood to extractive-free wood, to holocellulose, and to α-cellulose. Subsamples were analyzed for δ 13 C, percent carbon, and percent yield after each stage of chemical treatment. We recommend that holocellulose be extracted for T. occidentalis, as the α-cellulose yield may be too low when tree-ring samples are very small. The δ 13 C values for T. occidentalis tree rings were found to be enriched with respect to those for needle-leaved conifers but in close agreement with those reported in the literature for other scale-leaved evergreens.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207