Vertical trends in maximum branch diameter in two mixed-species spacing trials in the central Oregon Cascades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of spacing and competitor species on vertical trends in maximum branch diameter, the thickest branch per whorl, was assessed in two central Oregon spacing studies. One study involved a mix of Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. and Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws., the other a mix of Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl. and P. ponderosa. Impacts of autocorrelation became statistically insignificant after introduction of a single random tree effect. Although tree variables such as diameter, height, and crown length were able to account for most stand conditions, models with explicit treatment variables representing spacing and species composition were superior. All profiles of maximum branch diameter were curvilinear and widened with increasing spacing and tree relative height. For trees in mixtures, maximum branch diameter profiles of dominant and subordinate species were wider and thinner, respectively, than the same species in pure stands at the same spacing. However, as spacing increased, profiles of the subordinate species in mixtures had a greater response than those in adjacent pure plots and in the dominant species in the mixture. In contrast, the dominant species had a larger spacing response in the pure plots than in mixed plots.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".