MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168183000 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2021-0016

Effects of permanent and temporary edges on <i>Pinus clausa</i> (sand pine) architecture and stand conditions

2021· article· en· W3168183000 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Colin Smith, Francis E. Putz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsPinus <genus>Basal areaCanopyForestryWindthrowEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionGeographyEnvironmental scienceBotanyBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effects of permanent (i.e., maintained) and temporary edges with north- and south-facing exposures were studied in sand pine (Pinus clausa var. clausa (Chapm. ex Engelm.) Vasey ex Sarg.) scrub, an open-canopied forest type in Ocala National Forest, Florida. On edges and interiors of four stands of each type, we measured canopy tree architecture in 5 m × 100 m plots and stand density and basal area in 5 m × 200 m plots. Edge effects were modest but often stronger on south- than north-facing edges and along permanent forest roads than temporary edges of clearcuts that were allowed to regrow. Compared with interior trees, those on edges were typically shorter, retained branches lower on their boles, oriented their first branches more towards the edge, and produced more asymmetrical crowns with the long axis extending into the opening; these trends were greater on south- than north-facing edges and along permanent than temporary edges. Contrary to expectations, there were no edge effects on total basal area, dead tree densities, proportions of sand pine trees with leaning trunks, directions of lean, or angles of lean. Instead of an edge effect, most trees leaned towards the southwest, which seems related to the northeastern origin of prevailing winds and wind gusts.

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)0.000
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207