MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106079906 · doi:10.1139/x03-096

Intertree competition in uneven-aged ponderosa pine stands

2003· article· en· W2106079906 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christopher W. Woodall, Carl E. Fiedler, Kelsey S. Milner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasal areaDiameter at breast heightCompetition (biology)Crown (dentistry)Pinus <genus>ForestryTree (set theory)MathematicsThinningBiologyBotanyHorticultureEcologyGeographyCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intertree competition indices and effects were examined in 14 uneven-aged ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum Engelm.) stands in eastern Montana. Location, height, diameter at breast height (DBH), basal area increment, crown ratio, and sapwood area were determined for each tree (DBH >3.8 cm) on one stem-mapped plot (0.2-0.4 ha) in each sample stand. Based on tree locations, various competition indices were derived for each sample tree and correlated with its growth efficiency by diameter class. In addition, trends in individual tree attributes by diameter class and level of surrounding competition were determined. For trees with a DBH <10 cm, growth efficiency was most strongly correlated with the sum of surrounding tree heights within 10.6 m. The index most highly correlated for larger trees was the sum of surrounding basal area within 6.1 m. Regardless of tree size, individual tree growth efficiency, basal area increment, and crown ratio all decreased under increasing levels of competition, with the effect more pronounced in smaller trees. These results suggest that individual trees in uneven-aged stands experience competition from differing sources at varying scales based on their size, with response to competition diminishing as tree size increases.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations32
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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