MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969276207 · doi:10.1093/wjaf/15.3.117

Juvenile Height Development in Interior Spruce Stands of British Columbia

2000· article· en· W2969276207 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gordon D. Nigh, Bobby A. Love

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Applied Forestry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenileDiameter at breast heightSite indexForestryMathematicsGeographyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Good estimates of juvenile heights are important for silviculture and timber supply decision-making. These height estimates are particularly important for estimating the number of years it takes a stand to reach green-up and breast height. Thirty-nine 0.04 ha plots were established in managed juvenile stands of interior spruce in the Prince Rupert Forest Region. Four sample trees in each plot were split longitudinally and height-age data were obtained from the exposed pith nodes or branch whorls. The height-age data were fit to a combined exponential and power function to create a juvenile height model for interior spruce. This model is a function of age and site index. Years to breast height and green-up age models were developed with data generated from the juvenile height model. Forecasts from these models indicate that the time to reach breast height and green-up age is less than previously expected. The juvenile height model, years to breast height model, and green-up age model should be used for site indices above 14.2 m. In addition, the height model should only be used up to total age 20. West. J. Appl. For. 15(3):117-121.

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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern Journal of Applied ForestrySame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207