White Spruce Growth and Wood Properties over Multiple Time Periods in Relation to Current Tree and Stand Attributes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationships between white spruce radial increment and wood properties were investigated in relation to tree and stand attributes using data from mature white spruce stands in the boreal forest of western Canada that experienced a range of shelterwood treatments. The model with the highest predictive ability was radial increment (adj-R2 = 67%) and included crown attributes, diameter at breast height (DBH), average height of competitors, and a climate index. Radial growth was positively related to live crown ratio, whereas wood density and modulus of elasticity were negatively correlated to the crown attribute. Tree slenderness had a significant negative effect on wood density and modulus of elasticity, as it reflects the mechanical stability requirement of the tree. The models consistently improved when using annual averages calculated over longer periods of time. However, when the annual averages were calculated using time periods of 5–10 and 10–20 years prior to sampling, the predictive ability of the models decreased, which indicated that the current tree and stand conditions were the best predictors of growth and wood properties up to five years prior to sampling. This study suggests that crown length equal to 2/3 of the tree height might represent an optimal balance between radial growth and wood quality.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it