MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168675786 · doi:10.1139/x05-225

Spatial and temporal variability in forest growth in the Olympic Mountains, Washington: sensitivity to climatic variability

2006· article· en· W2168675786 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Melisa L. Holman, David L. Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasal areaSpatial variabilityClimate changeDendrochronologyLimitingPhysical geographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyForestryGeographyBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared annual basal area increment (BAI) at different spatial scales among all size classes and species at diverse locations in the wet western and dry northeastern Olympic Mountains. Weak growth correlations at small spatial scales (average R = 0.084–0.406) suggest that trees are responding to local growth conditions. However, significant positive growth correlations between geographically adjacent forest types (R = 0.440–0.852) and between watersheds (R = 0.430) indicate that there is a common overarching growth-limiting factor (e.g., climate) that affects tree growth over large areas. The Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carrière) forest type is the most sensitive to environmental change with the highest mean sensitivity (0.345), the highest potential for annual growth change (mean BAI = 0.0047 m 2 ), and the highest growth variability (coefficient of variation = 0.498). In addition, this forest type is most likely to exhibit extreme positive growth responses (4.2% of years have BAI values 2 standard deviations above the mean). Low-elevation coniferous forests are relatively sensitive to changes in growth-limiting factors (in contrast to the traditional view) and may play an important role in storing carbon in a warmer climate.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.004
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations34
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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