MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009108504 · doi:10.1093/forestry/cpaa005

Relevance of stem and crown defects to estimate tree vigour in northern hardwood forests

2020· article· en· W3009108504 on OpenAlexafffund
Guillaume Moreau, Alexis Achim, David Pothier

Bibliographic record

VenueForestry An International Journal of Forest Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCrown (dentistry)HardwoodYellow birchMapleSugarBark (sound)Tree (set theory)BiologyBotanyEcologyMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The visual assessment of tree vigour before partial cutting is a key element of the long-term sustainability of managed hardwood forests. Several classification systems have been developed and applied to perform this task during the tree marking process. They segregate trees in different vigour classes based on the presence and severity of stem and crown defects. Yet, the relevance of using these defects to assess tree vigour has rarely been empirically validated. In this study, we analysed the relationships between quantitative vigour indicators and a full range of individual defects using 336 sugar maple and 84 yellow birch trees. Among the tested defects, the tree crown density showed the best ability to identify slow growing, non-vigorous sugar maple trees, regardless of their size. However, none of the stem-related defects, such as bark aspect, the presence of cambial necrosis or conks and stromata were strongly related to our quantitative vigour indicators. For yellow birch, none of the stem defects and crown conditions were found to be related to our vigour indicators. We conclude that, pending longitudinal studies that will provide a full empirical validation of classification systems, crown density should be used to assess recent growth and vigour of sugar maple trees and guide tree marking.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestry An International Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207