Wood density of young-growth western hemlock: relation to ring age, radial growth, stand density, and site quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast-high stem sections were sampled from 56 western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) trees growing in 15 plots representing a wide range of tree and site conditions in northwestern Oregon. Growth and wood density traits of individual rings were measured via X-ray densitometry, and relationships of ring density and its components to age and growth rate were analyzed. Ring density was highest (0.49 g/cm3) near the pith, declined to 0.40 g/cm3 at age 10, remained stable to about age 25, and then increased gradually and remained between 0.43 and 0.44 g/cm3 from age 38 to 45 and beyond. A negative influence of rapid growth on whole ring density was greatest at young ages and diminished with time, becoming nonsignificant beyond age 30. Earlywood density, latewood density, and latewood proportion were all negatively related to ring width at young ages, but by age 21-25, latewood proportion was the only component of ring density that remained significantly diminished by increased growth rate. Residual differences in wood density (after age and growth rate were considered) did not appear to be related to either stand density or site class. Overall, young-growth hemlock trees are relatively uniform in wood density and likely to be more so if grown in intensively managed stands.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".