MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3206288009 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2021-0140

Tracheid dimensions of Norway spruce in uneven-aged stands

2021· article· en· W3206288009 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiri Pyörälä, Riikka Piispanen, Sauli Valkonen, Sven‐Olof Lundqvist

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTracheidPicea abiesPithBark (sound)BotanyBiologyDendrochronologyWoody plantCambiumForestryHorticultureGeographyEcologyXylem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tracheid length and width patterns from pith to bark at a height of 0.6 m in uneven-aged Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) trees were studied. Identification of the main factors and a comparison with even-aged stands were also carried out. Ninety-six trees were sampled from experimental stands in southern Finland. The material encompassed the variation in tracheid properties from early years to silvicultural maturity, i.e., from corewood to outerwood up to a cambial age of 111 years. Data from 39 Norway spruce trees from even-aged stands were utilized for comparison. Models fitted to the data indicated that annual ring widths did not influence mean tracheid dimensions but that the latewood proportion had a significant influence on tracheid dimensions. Tracheids in uneven-aged stands were slightly wider and longer at the base of the stem in trees with a similar diameter, cambial age, and annual ring number.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→