Height Growth Pattern of Lodgepole Pine in Relation to Natural Subregions in Alberta
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Based on the provincial stem analysis and permanent sample plot (PSP) data of 1,580 felled dominant and codominant trees, height growth patterns of lodgepole pine were compared among the three major natural subregions [Sub-Alpine (SAL), Upper Foothills (UFH), and Lower Foothills (LFH)] in Alberta. The comparison used the ratio of heights at 70 and 30 years of breast height age (Z ratio) as a quantitative measure of height growth pattern (i.e., the response variable), site index (height at breast height age of 50 years) as the covariate, and natural subregion as the factor. Results indicated that: (1) the height growth pattern in the SAL natural subregion was significantly different from other natural subregions; and (2) no significant differences in height growth pattern were found between other natural subregions. Two polymorphic height and site index curves were developed: one for the SAL natural subregion and the other for the UFH and LFH natural subregions. Comparisons between the two curves and the previously developed provincial curve indicated that, for the same site index, trees in the SAL subregion grow consistently slower after 50 years. When the provincial height and site index curve was applied to the SAL natural subregion, large differences (≤14%) in gross volume estimation were found. However, volume estimation differences were very small (<2%) when the provincial curve was applied to the other two natural subregions. It is recommended that the natural subregion-based curves should be used for predicting lodgepole pine site index or height at any age in the SAL natural subregion. West. J. Appl. For. 19(3):154–159.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it