MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105713683 · doi:10.1093/forestry/cps063

Effect of climate on lodgepole pine stem taper in British Columbia, Canada

2012· article· en· W2105713683 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gord Nigh, W. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueForestry An International Journal of Forest Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsMinistry of ForestsGovernment of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPinus contortaPrecipitationClimate changeEnvironmental scienceHeteroscedasticityChristian ministryGeographyPhysical geographyForestryMathematicsMeteorologyClimatologyStatisticsEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The taper equations used by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations in British Columbia (BC), Canada, date back to the mid-1950s. Very little work has been done on examining the effect of climate on taper, particularly for BC but elsewhere as well. The objective of our research was to determine whether climate has an effect on tree taper for lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.) in BC. The data for this project consisted of multiple diameter inside bark measurements along the stems of 270 trees across eight biogeoclimatic zones. In addition, 20 climate variables for the sample sites were predicted from the ClimateWNA model. Kozak's variable-exponent taper model was refitted with the climate variables in the exponent of the model. The single temperature- and precipitation-related variables that provided the best fit were incorporated into the final taper model. The model was analysed as a mixed-effects model, with spatial correlation and heteroscedastic errors being explicitly modelled. Mean annual precipitation and the Julian date of the first frost after the summer growing period were the best predictors of taper. Further work is required to understand why these variables are important predictors of taper, but a possible linkage is through the tree's crown.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

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

Citations31
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestry An International Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207