MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032866528 · doi:10.3390/f11060609

Meta-Modelling to Quantify Yields of White Spruce and Hybrid Spruce Provenances in the Canadian Boreal Forest

2020· article· en· W3032866528 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Suborna Ahmed, Valerie LeMay, Alvin D. Yanchuk, Andrew P. Robinson, Peter Marshall, Gary Bull

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGenome AlbertaGenome British ColumbiaGénome QuébecGenome Canada
KeywordsTaigaSowingPicea engelmanniiSilvicultureEnvironmental scienceForest managementBlack spruceSite indexBorealForestryAgroforestryEcologyGeographyAgronomyBiologyPinus contorta

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tree improvement programs can improve forest management by increasing timber yields in some areas, thereby facilitating conservation of other forest lands. In this study, we used a meta-analytic approach to quantify yields of alternative white (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) and hybrid spruce (Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelmann x Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) stocks across planting sites in the boreal and hemiboreal forests of Canada. We extracted meta-data from published tree improvement program results for five Canadian provinces covering 38 planting sites and 330 white and hybrid spruce provenances. Using these meta-data and a random-coefficients nonlinear mixed-effects modelling approach, we modelled average height over time trajectories for varying planting site characteristics, as well as climate transfer distances between planting sites and provenances. Climatic transfer distances had strong effects on the height trajectory parameters. In particular, the asymptote parameter had a nonlinear increasing trend with planting site versus provenance mean annual temperature differences. We incorporated the height trajectory meta-analysis model into an existing growth and yield model to predict volume yields. Overall, this research provides a mechanism to quantify yields of alternative provenances at a particular planting site, as a component of decision support models for evaluating evaluate forest management investment into improved planting stocks alternatives under current and possible future climates.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.015
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207