MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162309274 · doi:10.1139/x02-016

Climate, canopy disturbance, and radial growth averaging in a second-growth mixed-oak forest in West Virginia, U.S.A.

2002· article· en· W2162309274 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James S. Rentch, Fekedulegn Desta, Gary W. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThinningCanopyCrown (dentistry)Stand developmentDisturbance (geology)Environmental scienceForestryEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluated the use of radial growth averaging as a technique of identifying canopy disturbances in a thinned 55-year-old mixed-oak stand in West Virginia. We used analysis of variance to determine the time interval (averaging period) and lag period (time between thinning and growth increase) that best captured the growth increase associated with different levels of crown release of Quercus prinus L. and Quercus rubra L. A lag of 3 years and an interval of 7 years yielded the best fit of percent growth change and percent crown release, respectively, for Q. prinus; for Q. rubra, the radial growth response did not differ significantly when lag and interval were varied from 1 to 3 and 6 to 15 years, respectively. The relationship between percent crown release and percent growth change was linear for both species. This method provides a suitable means of detecting canopy disturbances affecting overstory trees and is potentially applicable to other tree species. When combined with fire histories, these data can provide the basis for reconstructing long-term disturbance regimes. This estimate may also provide a framework for scheduling the rate of stand entry for silvicultural treatments (e.g., thinning) that is consistent with its historic stand development.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

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

Citations54
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207