MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098061907 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2014-0525

Growth and allocation of <i>Picea rubens</i>, <i>Picea mariana</i>, and their hybrids under ambient and elevated CO<sub>2</sub>

2015· article· en· W2098061907 on OpenAlexaffvenue
John E. Major, Ale× Mosseler, Kurt H. Johnsen, Moira Campbell, John W. Malcolm

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack spruceShootHybridHorticultureBotanyBiologyAnimal scienceEcologyTaiga

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Red spruce (RS; Picea rubens Sarg.) – black spruce (BS; Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.) controlled crosses (100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, and 0% RS, balance BS) showed increasingly greater height with increasing proportion of BS in each successive year. Height growth of 4-year-old ambient CO 2 (aCO 2 ) grown trees was highly correlated with height of 22-year-old field-grown trees of the same or similar crosses. Bud flush was earliest in BS and declined linearly with increasing proportion of RS with no significant CO 2 effect. Percent stem (stem + branches) mass increased under elevated CO 2 (eCO 2 ), a quarter of which was due to ontogeny. Conversely, percent needle mass had a significant negative relationship with increasing tree size, and there was a CO 2 × tree size interaction. Shoot-to-root ratio was greatest for BS, whereas RS had among the lowest. Hybrid index (HI) 50 had the greatest root mass allocation, lowest shoot-to-root ratio, and among the greatest total mass under eCO 2 . Growth efficiency increased with tree size and eCO 2 but decreased with HI. Percent total biomass stimulation under eCO 2 was lowest for BS at 6.5%, greatest for HI 50 at 20.3%, and RS had 17.5%.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207