MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133977173 · doi:10.1093/treephys/tpp120

Growth-climate relationships vary with height along the stem in lodgepole pine

2010· article· en· W2133977173 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sophan Chhin, Edward H. Hogg, Victor J. Lieffers, Shengxiang Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueTree Physiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceAlberta Environment and Protected AreasUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceForest Resource Improvement Association of AlbertaKillam Trusts
KeywordsPinus contortaGrowing seasonEnvironmental scienceBasal areaSnowMoistureDendrochronologyBiologyBotanyHorticultureEcologyGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study tests the hypothesis that ring growth in the upper stem portion of trees is affected by climatic conditions differently than rings formed at breast height (1.3 m). A total of 389 trees from a network of 65 lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) sites in Alberta were examined using detailed stem analysis in order to examine interannual patterns of basal area increment and volume increment at different positions along the stem. Growth at lower sections of the bole was mainly driven by temperature and moisture conditions in the seasons prior to the growing season in the year of ring formation, while upper stem growth was more related to conditions during the year of growth, i.e., temperature in the early summer, or moisture in late winter to early spring. This translates into increased allocation of wood to the lower stem when prior late summer conditions are cool and wet, prior winters are mild (warm with little snow) and early summer conditions in the year of ring formation are hot and dry.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTree PhysiologySame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207