MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240351939 · doi:10.1139/x00-074

The relationship between tree diameter growth and climate for coniferous species in northern California

2000· article· en· W4240351939 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hui-Yi Yeh, Lee C. Wensel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Water Resources
KeywordsPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceClimate changeElevation (ballistics)Physical geographyClimatologyEcologyAtmospheric sciencesGeographyBiologyMeteorologyGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The difference between actual and predicted growth rates for the conifer regions of northern California has been observed to vary with climatic changes. This study presents a method to investigate the relationship between growth and climate. Growth variations attributable to biological and cultural factors were removed by using the CACTOS (California conifer timber output simulator) program. The remaining variation was then associated with relative precipitation and temperature for the projected period and the CACTOS calibration period. Climatic data from the current and preceding years were considered. Elevation, stand density, and species were also investigated to determine their effects on the format and magnitude of the relationship between growth and climate. The results of this study, which included tests of stem analysis data taken over 15 years, indicate that growth variation is associated with the climatic changes of winter precipitation and summer temperatures for the region, in addition to biological and cultural factors. Winter precipitation and summer temperatures affect growth in the current and the subsequent years. Moreover, the relationship between climate and growth changes by densities and species. This study provides a basis for using short-term growth data to make long-term growth projections with growth adjusted to long-term climatic conditions.

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 score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations46
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207