MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094530652 · doi:10.1139/x08-131

Predicting the age of ancient <i>Thuja occidentalis</i> on cliffs

2008· article· en· W2094530652 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Uta Matthes, Peter E. Kelly, Douglas W. Larson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIvey Foundation
KeywordsEcologyHabitatThujaHomogeneousGeographyDendrochronologyForestryBiologyMathematicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In rocky, heterogeneous environments that support old-growth forests, the relationship between tree size and age is weaker than it is for trees growing in productive and homogeneous habitats. To assist in the management and conservation of ancient forests on rocky land of low productivity, it would be useful if the relationships among age, environmental heterogeneity, and morphological variability could be understood and used to develop predictive models of longevity so that extensive core sampling of trees would not be required. Here we sampled 296 mature Thuja occidentalis L. growing on limestone cliffs along the Niagara Escarpment, southern Ontario, Canada. We measured a variety of site conditions and morphological traits, including age, which varied from 51 to 1316 years. We then used redundancy analysis and multiple regression to model the relationships among age, morphology, growth rate, and environment, resulting in quantitative models predicting tree age from four subsets of variables. We subsequently tested the models on 60 additional trees not used to build the models and found that they predicted up to 78% of the variation in actual tree age. This approach could be adopted for use in other forest types to predict the age of trees without using tree-ring analysis.

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)0.002
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 score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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