MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969239736 · doi:10.1093/wjaf/17.1.46

Water Requirements and Growth of Irrigated Hybrid Poplar in a Semi-Arid Environment in Eastern Oregon

2002· article· en· W2969239736 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clinton C. Shock, Erik B.G. Feibert, Majid Seddigh, Lamont D. Saunders

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Applied Forestry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrigationEnvironmental scienceAridSoil waterWater contentWater potentialGrowing seasonAgronomyHydrology (agriculture)Soil scienceBiologyEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Potential growth of poplar (Populus deltoidesP. nigra.) is highly dependent on the amount of applied irrigation and soil moisture. Hybrid poplar (cultivar OP-367) was planted at 222 trees/ac in April 1997 at the Oregon State University Malheur Experiment Station near Ontario, OR. Six irrigation treatments included a combination of soil water potentials as thresholds for initiating irrigation and varying water application rates. Water was applied via micro-sprinklers installed along the tree rows. Results indicated that for optimum poplar growth, soil water potential at an 8 in. depth should average above -20 kPa (kPa = cbar) during the growing season. This was achieved by irrigating when the soil water potential reached -25 kPa and applying 21 ac-in./ac of irrigation water during the first year, 35 ac-in./ac during the second year, and 44 ac-in./ac during the third year. By the end of the third year, trees receiving optimum irrigation averaged 26 ft tall and produced 256 ft3 of wood/ac. West. J. Appl. For. 17(1):46–53.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations41
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern Journal of Applied ForestrySame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207