MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2137522691 · doi:10.1139/x08-016

Light interception and canopy radiation balance of staghorn sumac (<i>Rhus typhina</i>)

2008· article· en· W2137522691 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Peter M. Lafleur, Andrew G. Farnsworth

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTrent University
KeywordsCanopyInterceptionPhotosynthetically active radiationLeaf area indexEnvironmental scienceBotanyAtmospheric sciencesBiologyEcologyPhotosynthesisGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We measured interaction of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) at a staghorn sumac ( Rhus typhina L.) canopy near Peterborough, Ontario, during summer 2006. Measurements included above-canopy and below-canopy incoming and reflected PAR fluxes and leaf area index (LAI). The ratio of down-welling PAR below the canopy to the flux incident at the top of the canopy (τ) and proportion of incident PAR absorbed by the canopy (fPAR), were calculated. While the canopy was leafless, the sumac stems absorb 10%–20% of incident PAR. LAI increased rapidly during the month of June, and correspondingly τ decreased rapidly while fPAR increased rapidly. Mean values of τ and fPAR at maximum LAI were 0.38±0.09 (SD) and 0.60 ±0.04, respectively. Neither variable showed a relationship with solar zenith angle. We present a simple idealized model of PAR interaction with sumac. Although only one stand was studied, we hypothesize that these results may be more widely applicable to other mature sumac 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 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 score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies→French-language works237,207→