Comparative analysis of occluded branch characteristics for<i>Fraxinus excelsior</i>and<i>Acer pseudoplatanus</i>with natural and artificial pruning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to develop models on branch characteristics for Fraxinus excelsior L. (common ash) and Acer pseudoplatanus L. (sycamore maple) based on 44 and 25 sample trees, respectively. A total of 635 ash and 334 maple branches were sampled. The data set on artificial pruning was pooled among the two species with a total of 71 branches from 16 trees. The material was used to predict (i) the time for a complete occlusion, (ii) the total radius of the occluded branch inside the trunk, (iii) the branch insertion angle, and (iv) the dead branch portion of the occluded branch. In addition, the effects of species and natural versus artificial pruning were assessed. Generalized hierarchical mixed models with univariate or multivariate approaches were used in this analysis. The diameter of the occluded branch and the stem radial increment played a dominant role as predictors. Artificial pruning led to a significant reduction in occlusion time and a shorter occluded branch radius. Only few species-specific differences were found. Simulations showed a reasonable overall behaviour of the models. The residual variation was tolerable for integrating the models into a growth simulation system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".