MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166073680 · doi:10.48044/jauf.2006.027

Evaluation of the Fate of Ice Storm-Damaged Urban Maple (Acer) Trees

2006· article· en· W2166073680 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher J. Luley, Jerry Bond

Bibliographic record

VenueArboriculture & Urban Forestry · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTree Research and Education Endowment Fund
KeywordsCrown (dentistry)Tree healthMapleCanopyStormForestryGeographyAceraceaeEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyBiologyEcologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Annually, ice storms cause millions of dollars of damage to urban trees and infrastructure in the United States and Canada. However, there is limited information to guide judgments on whether to remove ice-damaged trees. This study followed the response of three maple species that were damaged in the 1998 ice storm in northern New York State. Norway (Acer platanoides), silver (A. saccharinum), and sugar maples (A. saccharum) were placed in one of three diameter classes and canopy loss categories and were reevaluated 6 years after the initial damage. Over the 5-year study period, 26.8% of trees were removed, and there was no statistical difference among species, crown loss, or diameter class for these removals. Analysis of a variety of tree health and crown parameters showed that tree species was the most important factor in response, whereas diameter class and crown loss were less important. These results suggest that urban tree managers should consider tree species as an important factor in making removal decisions after an ice storm.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

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 head0.207
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArboriculture & Urban ForestrySame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207