MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211113636 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2021-0043

Drag relationships for full-grown Scots pine trees

2022· article· en· W4211113636 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sergey A. Borisevich, A. N. Kamluk, Dmitry V. Rebko

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDragScots pineScalingDrag coefficientRange (aeronautics)Pinus <genus>Wind speedEnvironmental scienceMechanicsMathematicsMeteorologyPhysicsAtmospheric sciencesGeometryEngineeringBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wind force acting on full-grown pine trees as they free fall was calculated based on comparison of the results of the field experiment and numerical simulation using Borisevich and Vikhrenko’s 2018 model. A number of improvements were proposed to increase the accuracy of the method. Field experiments of the free fall of five pine trees previously cut were carried out. Then, computer simulations of their motion assuming the linear dependence of drag force on air velocity were performed. Comparisons of the data of the field experiments and computer simulations showed that the linear dependence with a constant scaling parameter gives a good approximation of the drag force at a wide range of air velocity values. Error analysis was carried out to assess the quality of the numerical model. At all times during the movement, the deviations in the center mass positions observed in the field experiment and obtained in the numerical experiment do not exceed the diameter of the tree stem. The scaling parameter for five full-grown Scots pines (Pinus sylvestris L.) growing in stands ranged between 25.5 and 90.0 kg/s.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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