Bibliographic record
Abstract
A tree neighboring a new gap must show a certain degree of morphological plasticity in its lateral growth to take advantage of the available space, expanding branches preferentially on the side of the gap. I evaluated the morphological plasticity of sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) by measuring crown asymmetry with respect to four different neighborhood contexts. Isolated trees have the most symmetrical crown, while all trees at the edge of a field have the largest part of their crown growing away from the forest. Asymmetry of trees at the edge of a forest and a recently constructed right-of-way is intermediate. The crown of forest trees is more developed away from the main competitive pressure of neighboring trees, with a disproportionate influence of the strongest neighbor. This crown development minimizes the negative effects of the interference with neighbors when competition is asymmetrical around a tree. The simplest mechanism allowing morphological plasticity and the resulting crown asymmetry involves a certain degree of autonomy of individual branches. Yet, branch autonomy is less likely for deciduous trees with determinate, single-flush growth patterns such as sugar maple. Some aspects of plasticity in sugar maple need to be investigated, especially with regard to a process where trees could compensate for the negative effects of close neighbors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".