MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112742072 · doi:10.1093/forestry/cpt006

Quantifying the influence of live crown ratio on the mechanical properties of clear wood

2013· article· en· W2112742072 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Adam Kuprevicius, David Auty, Alexis Achim, John P. Caspersen

Bibliographic record

VenueForestry An International Journal of Forest Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsCrown (dentistry)ThinningYoung's modulusHorticultureStiffnessComposite materialMathematicsBotanyMaterials scienceForestryBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conceptual models of wood formation suggest that trees with large crowns produce wood with reduced mechanical properties due to enhanced auxin production, but few studies have explicitly examined the relationship between crown dimensions and wood properties. Using white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) trees harvested from spacing and thinning trials in central Ontario, Canada, this study examines how live crown ratio influences the strength and stiffness of wood. Modulus of rupture (MOR) and modulus of elasticity (MOE) were measured by conducting three-point bending tests on small (150 × 10 × 10 mm) defect-free samples selected from different radial positions at three heights within the stems. MOR and MOE were strongly and positively related to cambial age, and also increased slightly with sampling height. In addition, MOR showed a significant decrease with increasing live crown ratio – calculated as the ratio of crown length to tree height – in both the spacing and the thinning trials. However, MOE decreased significantly with live crown ratio only in the spacing trial, where the younger trees had a larger range of crown ratios. These results provide tentative support for models of wood formation that link wood quality with crown development, suggesting that crown metrics could be used to predict wood properties before harvest, but doing so may be problematic in mature stands that exhibit less variability in crown dimensions.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations71
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestry An International Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207