MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2259724786 · doi:10.14288/1.0107275

Trembling aspen site index in relation to site quality in northern British Columbia

2008· article· en· W2259724786 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karel Klinka, Han Y. H. Chen, Christine Chourmouzis

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSite indexIndex (typography)GeographyForestryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate and reliable predictions of site index (height of dominant trees at a reference age, usually 50 years at breast-height) for timber crop species is essential for silvicultural site-specific decision making. Site index can be predicted from site quality once the relationship between site index and site quality has been quantified. Site quality is defined as the sum of all environmental factors affecting the biotic community, such as the factors directly influencing the growth of vascular plants (light, heat, soil moisture, soil nutrients, and soil aeration). Since these factors vary greatly in time, indirect estimates of site quality have widely been used as predictors for site index in various multiple regression models. Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) is the most widely distributed broadleaf species in British Columbia, especially in the Boreal White and Black Spruce (BWBS) biogeoclimatic zone. Growing this species for sustainable timber production requires a good understanding of its productivity attributes and accurate predictions of its growth. This extension note presents (1) relationships between trembling aspen site index and some indirect measures of site quality, and (2) site index prediction models using the indirect measures of site quality as predictors.

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)0.002
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicArchaeology and Natural History→French-language works237,207→