MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000232492 · doi:10.5558/tfc2019-028

Modelling wood density and modulus of elasticity in white spruce plantations in Eastern Québec

2019· article· en· W3000232492 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tony Franceschini, Ferraille Thibaut, Guillaume Giroud, Barrette Julie, Robert Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryMathematicsForest managementElasticity (physics)Diameter at breast heightStatisticsEnvironmental scienceGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest managers have to take into account multiple objectives such as stand yield, wood quality attributes, ecological constraints and social considerations when making their decisions. The objective of the present study is to build (i) a dynamicmodulus of elasticity (MOEdyn) model and (ii) a core wood density (WDcore) model for white spruce plantations in theBas-Saint-Laurent Region (Québec, Canada) to quantify their inter- and intra-stand variations in order for managers tobetter weigh their different options. Using data obtained from 54 sample plots in 31 white spruce plantations from Eastern Québec, the MOEdynof 143 trees and the WDcoreof 162 trees were analysed. Dendrometric and stand variables wereused to build a MOEdynlinear mixed-effect model and a WD multiple linear regression model. The MOEdynmodel explained 66.8% of the total variation, 1.1% of which originated from inter-stand variations. MOEdynwas proportionalto diameter at breast height (DBH) and non-linearly decreased with tree growth rate. The WDcoremodel explained 16.0%of the total variation. The intra-stand variations were represented by a negative relationship between WDcoreand growthrate. Inter-stand variations were accounted for by site index and altitude. The performance of the MOEdynmodel was satisfactory and in accordance with the literature. However, the WDcoremodel was below standard, mainly as a consequenceof unaccounted intra-individual variations. Nonetheless, raw simulations using these models suggest that white sprucewood from plantations may benefit from intensive forest management.

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)0.001
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.203
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207