The effect of site quality on growth efficiency of upper crown class Picea rubens and Abies balsamea in Maine, USAPublication 3046 of the Maine Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of site index on growth efficiency was studied for 411 dominant and codominant Abies balsamea (L.) Mill. and Picea rubens Sarg. from 10 sites across Maine, USA. Young A. balsamea (n = 204) were from stands precommercially thinned 15–20 years ago and ranged in site index from 18.4 to 24.3, while the older P. rubens (n = 207) were from stands that were not precommercially thinned and ranged in site index from 13.1 to 17.8. We hypothesized that site index positively influences growth efficiency. The results showed that volume increment – leaf area relationships and growth efficiency increased significantly with site index for A. balsamea but were unaffected by site index for P. rubens. A monotonic decreasing pattern of growth efficiency over increasing leaf area was found for both species. When standardized per unit site index, growth efficiency behaved nonlinearly for both species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".