MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214094686 · doi:10.48044/jauf.2010.001

Appraisal of Key Abiotic Parameters Affecting Street Tree Growth

2010· article· en· W3214094686 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pierre Jutras, Shiv O. Prasher, G. R. Mehuys

Bibliographic record

VenueArboriculture & Urban Forestry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsTiliaAbiotic componentFraxinusForestryBiologyGeographyEcologyHorticultureBotanyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Street trees must cope with severe environmental conditions. Identification of factors that modulate their survival and growth is a key process for successful management. To estimate these factors, contingency analyses were carried out using abiotic data collected locally for Norway maple (Acer platanoides L.), silver maple (Acer saccharinum L.), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis L.), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.), honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos L.), littleleaf linden (Tilia cordata Mill.), and Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila L.) trees. Also, comparable analyses were performed on a merged all-species data set. Whereas sharp differential growth was found between commercial zones and residential areas, studied species demonstrated ecological tolerance as individuals were found normally or vigorously growing in severe conditions. In this situation, ample irradiation intensity might be an important factor contributing to urban tree growth. Statistical analyses led to the identification of a threshold level (80% of total potential irradiation) above which optimal growth was found in commercial zones. Research results also brought out the importance of the underlying surficial deposits: slow growth rates were linked to the presence of sand/gravel deposits. Finally, higher soil de-icing salt concentrations were found in tree pits where trees were transplanted closer to the curb and on wider streets.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations36
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArboriculture & Urban ForestrySame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207