MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157107443 · doi:10.1139/x06-105

Effects of release from suppression on wood functional characteristics in young Douglas-fir and western hemlock

2006· article· en· W2157107443 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heidi Renninger, Barbara L. Gartner, Frederick C. Meinzer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Bureau of Land ManagementOregon State UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsWestern HemlockTsugaTracheidDouglas firThujaBotanyHorticultureBiologyWoody plantForestryEnvironmental scienceXylemGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known of wood properties in trees that were initially suppressed and subsequently released from suppression. The purpose of this study was to assess differences in growth ring width, specific conductivity (Ks), tracheid dimensions, moisture content, and wood density in suppressed Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.) trees and trees released from suppression averaging 12–18 years of age. Growth ring width was 370% higher for Douglas-fir and 300% higher for western hemlock trees released from suppression, and Ks was 182% higher for Douglas-fir and 42% higher for western hemlock trees released from suppression. Earlywood width was approximately four times greater after release in both species, whereas the relative increase in latewood width was much greater in Douglas-fir. Tracheids were 25% wider and 11% longer in released Douglas-fir trees. In western hemlock, released trees had 19% wider tracheids that were approximately the same length as those in suppressed trees. Moisture content was 66% greater in released Douglas-fir and 41% greater in released western hemlock. Wood density decreased by 21% in Douglas-fir trees and by 11% in western hemlock trees released from suppression. However, wood density of released trees did not differ from average reported values, implying that wood from released trees may be suitable for many of its traditional applications.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207