MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171218493 · doi:10.1139/x06-026

The relationship between site and tree characteristics and the presence of wet heartwood in black spruce in the boreal forest of Quebec, Canada

2006· article· en· W2171218493 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Cornélia Krause, Réjean Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack spruceTaigaForestryPodzolMoistureWater contentEnvironmental scienceSoil waterBotanyEcologyHorticultureGeographyBiologySoil scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wet heartwood in black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP) causes considerable problems during the drying process. Forest companies try to avoid harvesting stands with wet heartwood, but no relationship has been yet established between the incidence of wet heartwood and tree or site characteristics. To characterize areas containing a significant proportion of black spruce affected by wet heartwood, a total of 635 black spruce trees were sampled in eighteen 400 m2 study plots under management in the central boreal forest of Quebec. A total of 18 study sites were analysed and classified as wet, intermediate, or dry, based on the proportion of individuals with wet heartwood. Thirteen of the study sites were classified as wet, two as intermediate, and three as dry. The average age calculated for trees on wet sites was significantly (p = 0.0001) higher than that of the other two classes, whereas growth rate was significantly lower on wet sites. No difference was noted in the average height or diameter of the individuals from all three classes. The wet sites contained organic soil, whereas Podzols characterized two of the three dry study sites. An additional sampling of black spruce (n = 509) revealed a significant relationship between the groundwater level and heartwood moisture content classification (i.e., dry, intermediate, or wet). Trees in the dry heartwood class grew on sites with the lowest groundwater levels (p = 0.002) compared with trees in the wet or intermediate classes.

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)0.001
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207