MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109741319 · doi:10.1093/treephys/tpq104

Within crown variation in the relationship between foliage biomass and sapwood area in jack pine

2011· article· en· W2109741319 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Schneider, Frank Berninger, Chhun-Huor Ung, Annikki Mäkelä, D. Edwin Swift, S. Y. Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueTree Physiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsFPInnovationsCanadian Forest ServiceUniversité du Québec à MontréalNatural Resources CanadaUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrown (dentistry)Biomass (ecology)Whorl (mollusc)BotanyLinear relationshipEnvironmental scienceHorticultureMathematicsBiologyAgronomyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between sapwood area and foliage biomass is the basis for a lot of research on eco-phyisology. In this paper, foliage biomass change between two consecutive whorls is studied, using different variations in the pipe model theory. Linear and non-linear mixed-effect models relating foliage differences to sapwood area increments were tested to take into account whorl location, with the best fit statistics supporting the non-linear formulation. The estimated value of the exponent is 0.5130, which is significantly different from 1, the expected value given by the pipe model theory. When applied to crown stem sapwood taper, the model indicates that foliage biomass distribution influences the foliage biomass to sapwood area at crown base ratio. This result is interpreted as being the consequence of differences in the turnover rates of sapwood and foliage. More importantly, the model explains previously reported trends in jack pine sapwood area at crown base to tree foliage biomass ratio.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.227
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTree PhysiologySame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207