Spatial Point-pattern Analysis of a Population of Lodgepole Pine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial point-patterns analyses were conducted to provide insight into the ecological process behind competition and mortality in two lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) stands, one in the Lower Foothills, and the other in the Upper Foothills natural subregions in the boreal forest of Alberta, Canada. Spatial statistical tests were applied to live and dead trees and included Clark-Evans nearest neighbor statistic (R), nearest neighbor distribution function (G(r)), and a variant of Ripley’s K function (L(r)). In both lodgepole pine plots, the results indicated that there was significant regularity in the spatial point-pattern of the surviving trees which indicates that competition has been a key driver of mortality and forest dynamics in these plots. Dead trees generally showed a clumping pattern in higher density patches. There were also significant bivariate relationships between live and dead trees, but the relationships differed by natural subregion. In the Lower Foothills plot there was significant attraction between live and dead tees which suggests mainly one-sided competition for light. In contrast, in the Upper Foothills plot, there was significant repulsion between live and dead trees which suggests two-sided competition for soil nutrients and soil moisture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".