MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232274205 · doi:10.1139/x01-096

Comparison of basic density and longitudinal shrinkage in tension wood and opposite wood in young stems of <i>Populus euramericana</i> cv. Ghoy when subjected to a gravitational stimulus

2001· article· en· W4232274205 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Benoît Jourez, Alain Riboux, André Leclercq

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShrinkageGrowing seasonShootBent molecular geometryCuttingBotanyHorticultureComposite materialMaterials scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a greenhouse, under controlled conditions, young shoots, taken from poplar cuttings (Populus euramericana (Dole) Guinier cv. Ghoy), were artificially bent to quantify the modifications of physical properties induced by a gravitational stimulus. At the end of the growing season, basic density and longitudinal shrinkage were measured on very small samples taken from pure tension wood tissue observed on the upper face of the inclined axis and compared with opposite wood tissue, free of gelatinous fibers, developed on the opposite lower face. In a second step, shoots bent at two different lean intensities were analyzed. In young poplar wood, gravitational stimulus was found to have a significant effect on physical properties. Relations between basic density and longitudinal shrinkage are different depending on the types of wood considered. Shrinkage appears more sensitive to lean intensity in the range considered here.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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