MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2163654937 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2015-0064

Hierarchical analysis of black spruce and balsam fir wood density in Newfoundland

2015· article· en· W2163654937 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Arthur Groot, J. Luther

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaFPInnovations
KeywordsBalsamBlack spruceDendrochronologyMathematicsForestryPlot (graphics)Tree (set theory)StatisticsBotanyBiologyGeographyTaigaCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used a hierarchical approach to examine patterns of black spruce and balsam fir wood density across Newfoundland. Wood density measurements were aggregated at ring, tree, and plot levels. Portions of the variance in wood density at the different levels were explained by predictor variables at multiple levels of a forest structural hierarchy (ring-, tree-, and plot-level variables). Hierarchical fixed effects models accounted for 39%, 61%, and 86% of the variance in wood density of black spruce at ring, tree, and plot levels, respectively, with RMSE values of 62.7, 34.6, and 19.4 kg·m−3. Corresponding models accounted for 31%, 38%, and 63% of the variance in wood density of balsam fir, with RMSE values of 62.4, 35, and 16.7 kg·m−3. The hierarchical analysis demonstrated consistent negative associations of wood density to radial growth rate at ring, tree, and plot levels of aggregation. Variables that act as surrogates for radial growth are thus important for understanding patterns of wood density at higher scales and for the practical application of mapping wood density across landscapes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→