MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091944559 · doi:10.1139/x05-118

Wood density in Norway spruce: changes with thinning intensity and tree age

2005· article· en· W2091944559 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tuula Jaakkola, Harri Mäkinen, Pekka Saranpää

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThinningPicea abiesBasal areaKarstIntensity (physics)ForestryHorticultureBotanyEnvironmental scienceBiologyAnimal scienceGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of thinning intensity on growth and wood density in Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) was investigated in two long-term thinning experiments in southeastern Finland. The stands were approaching maturity, and their development had already been studied for 30 years. The intensities of thinning were low, normal, and high (i.e., the stand basal area after the thinning was, on average, 40, 27, and 24 m 2 ·ha –1 , respectively, in Heinola, and 30, 28, and 17 m 2 ·ha –1 in Punkaharju, respectively). Compared with the low thinning intensity, the normal and high thinning intensities increased the basal-area increment of individual trees by 52% and 68%, respectively. Normal and high thinning intensities resulted in a relatively small reduction (1%–4%) of mean ring density compared with low thinning intensity. The random variation in wood density between and within trees was large. About 27% of the total variation in wood density was related to variation between rings. Our results indicate that the prevailing thinning intensities in Norway spruce stands in Fennoscandia cause no marked changes in wood density. At least, the possible reduction in wood density is low compared with the increase in individual tree growth.

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)0.000
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 score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations90
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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