MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334437457 · doi:10.5558/tfc2013-120

A case of extensive conifer needle browning in northwestern Ontario in 2012: Winter drying or freezing damage?

2013· article· en· W2334437457 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Rongzhou Man, Steve Colombo, Gordon J. Kayahara, Shelagh Duckett, Ricardo Timoteo Zapata Velásquez, Qing‐Lai Dang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryOntario Forest Research Institute
FundersMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsSpring (device)BrowningBayEnvironmental scienceBorealThunderTaigaFrost (temperature)HorticultureGeographyForestryBiologyEcologyMeteorologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the spring of 2012, conifers in a large area in northwestern Ontario exhibited severe needle browning prior to budbreak, affecting more than 250 000 ha of forests north and west of Thunder Bay. Examination of weather data suggests that damage was caused by a combination of warm temperatures in March resulting in dehardening followed by freezing temperatures in April that were below a critical value. Damage was similar in nature to that observed in 2007 in northeastern Ontario, but in this case occurred earlier in the year and affected a larger area. Areas of northern Ontario where trees were affected were easily separated from those where no damage was observed using daily minimum temperature and cumulative growing degree day data. We suggest that a new term, winter freezing damage, be used to describe conifer needle and bud damage prior to budbreak when a period of warm temperatures in late winter/early spring followed by a period of sufficiently cold freezing temperatures causes damage to forest stands.

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 score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207