MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769408304 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0262

Competition improves quality-related external stem characteristics of <i>Fagus sylvatica</i>

2017· article· en· W2769408304 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kirsten Höwler, Peter Annighöfer, Christian Ammer, Dominik Seidel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNiedersächsische Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kultur
KeywordsBeechFagus sylvaticaCompetition (biology)Quality (philosophy)Forest managementEnvironmental scienceForestryAgroforestryEcologyBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate information on the timber quality of hardwoods is often lacking, in particular for standing trees. In situ measurements of timber quality have the potential to improve the economic yield of a stand and may contribute to the optimal timing of a harvest and, in general, to improving forest management. Here, we used terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) to assess external timber quality metrics nondestructively. We investigated how competition intensity affected the metrics of 118 European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) trees. We found that two newly developed TLS-based measures of external stem characteristics (number of bark anomalies per metre and stem non-circularity) were affected by competition intensity, suggesting that regulating competition levels may improve timber quality. Our study confirms empirical findings indicating a positive relationship between competition intensity and timber quality of European beech and offers a new methodology to assess external timber quality measures in the field objectively and nondestructively.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207