Bibliographic record
Abstract
The result of pruning on 2～5 years old Paulownia trees without natural trunk extension showed, the effective way to promote trunk extension and its growth is to pruning the top branches and part of branches of lower canopy. The optimum pruning applications should be conducted in spring 3 years after plantation, under 50%～70% of pruning strength and leaving 2～3 layers of side branches. The successful rate of trunk extension by this method is 975% with the result of its height, diameter and form quotiety (FQ) of 57m, 104cm and 059, respectively; which had less effectives of affecting the growth of branches and the stock, but had much more effectiveness of promoting the growth of uppertrunk and stock of the main trunk, with the result of reducing the FQ of the formal trunk. Under the treatment of pruning on lowseedling with comparison of CK of highseedling, the height of the trunk is 717% higher than that of CK. After 2～3 years growth, the extension part combined well with the formal trunk whose stock reached 271%～323% of the whole volume. Compared with CK, there was no significant change of the growth of formal branches of lower canopy and its volume, on the other hand, the growth of the upper branch and standing stock of main trunk is 72%～85%, 422%～456% higher than that of CK, respectively; the treatment reduced the tapering grade, and at the same time enhanced the FQ.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".