MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530638993 · doi:10.3390/f7100235

Climatic Sensitivity of a Mixed Forest Association of White Spruce and Trembling Aspen at Their Southern Range Limit

2016· article· en· W2530638993 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Sophan Chhin, G. Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEcotoneTaigaGrowing seasonBorealPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceRange (aeronautics)Climate changeEcologyForestryGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climatic sensitivity of white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) was examined growing in association with trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) at their southern limit of distribution in a transitional ecotone between the southern boreal forest and northern prairie region. The study was carried out in the Spruce Woods Provincial Park (SWPP) located in southwestern Manitoba, Canada. The dry regional climate restricted trembling aspen growth during the growing season via moisture deficiency and temperature induced drought stress. Warm, mild winters also negatively affected radial growth of trembling aspen. Growth of white spruce was moderated by conditions within the aspen stands as radial growth patterns showed low variability from year to year, a low common growth signal, and a stronger response to temperature than to precipitation. Nonetheless, the dry regional climate still restricted growth of white spruce during the growing season via temperature induced drought stress. The findings of the study for white spruce support the stress gradient hypothesis in which facilitative interactions between tree species are expected under harsher environmental conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207