MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Variation of Wood Density in Tropical Rainforest Trees

2017· article· en· W2782007678 on OpenAlexaff
Adrien N. Djomo, Guylène Ngoukwa, Louis Zapfack, Cédric Djomo Chimi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forests · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeciduousBark (sound)RainforestTropical rainforestForestryEnvironmental scienceBotanyHorticultureBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measurement of wood density in Congo Basin forests are needed to reduce uncertainties on estimations of carbon stocks. The purpose of this study was to test vertical variation and temperature variation (80 °C, 105 °C) effects on wood density of species in a semi-deciduous forest of eastern Cameroon. Wood samples were collected on felled trees, at the base, middle of the trunk and on the branches in plots of 10 m x 10 m for trees <5 cm diameter, of 20 m x 10 m for trees with diameter between 5 and 10 cm and, of 20 m x 250 m for trees with diameter ≥ 10 cm. 162 trees with diameter between 1 cm and 146 cm were used. The highest wood density (0.912) was found in Ficus sp. and lowest (0.295) in Enantia chlorantha. Using 80 °C as temperature to estimate wood density increased the value of about 10% when compare to the reference temperature of 105 °C. A significant difference was observed between wood density of the base and the top of trees studied. 10 species did not have wood density reported in the Global Wood Density database. This study recommends further research on wood density to cover as many tree species as possible in the Congo Basin.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ForestsSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207