MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4290649038 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2022-0016

Wood properties of loblolly pine grown under intensive management in the Upper Coastal Plain of southwest Georgia

2022· article· en· W4290649038 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thomas L. Eberhardt, Daniel J. Leduc, Lisa J. Samuelson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceAuburn UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsLoblolly pineIrrigationWeed controlPinus <genus>Environmental scienceProductivityCoastal plainHuman fertilizationPrescribed burnAgronomyWeedForestryBiologyBotanyEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loblolly pine ( Pinus taeda L.) productivity over the past century has increased significantly from genetic improvements and more intensive management practices. The current study concludes a series of assessments of loblolly pine growth/physiological responses to continuous resource management treatments of weed control (W), weed control plus irrigation (WI), and weed control plus irrigation and fertigation (WIF). Increment cores were analyzed by X-ray densitometry to assess treatment impacts on wood properties. Plotting the wood property data against assigned years allowed results to be compared with available weather data. Mean values for all wood property determinations were similar between the W and WI treatments. Increased ring width for the WIF treatment was consistent with other studies demonstrating substantial increases in loblolly pine productivity by fertilization. Since decreases in ring specific gravity (SG) from fertilization can be offset by increases in ring SG from irrigation, gains in productivity were achieved without reducing wood quality.

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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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