MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157225374 · doi:10.1139/x10-241

Role of substrate on the dendroclimatic response of Scots pine from varying elevations in northern Scotland

2011· article· en· W2157225374 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andy Moir, Suzanne A.G. Leroy, Samuli Helama

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersComisión Nacional ForestalUniversity of Canterbury
KeywordsScots pinePeatBogPinus <genus>Growing seasonEnvironmental scienceDendrochronologyPhysical geographySubstrate (aquarium)Tree lineDendroclimatologyForestryEcologyHydrology (agriculture)GeographyClimate changeGeologyBiologyBotanyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of substrate was evaluated by comparing annual ring widths of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) with climate data at 13 new sites (five bog, three peat, and five soil), together with 17 previously studied soil sites in northern Scotland. Radial growth rates &lt;1.0 and &gt;1.5 mm·year –1 differentiate well between pine growing on bog and peat, respectively, highlighting the role of pine as a indicator of water levels in these environments. Scots pine chronologies from bog are shown to have a weak temperature–growth response and so limit potential in dendroclimatic reconstructions. However, correlation analysis shows temperature in January–February and July–August to be important determinants of the radial growth of Scots pine on soil. Moving correlation analysis indicates that the relationship between the radial growth of pine on soil near the altitudinal tree line and summer temperature (July–August) is time stable, despite an increase of temperature in northern Scotland. However, winter (January–February) temperature has become less limiting since the 1920s. Scots pine at some soil, bog, and peat sites have increased or developed correlation with October temperature since the 1940s, suggesting an extension of the growth season, particularly on the western coast of Scotland.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207