MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301735374 · doi:10.1051/forest:2008042/pdf

Predicting decay and round-wood end use volume in trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.)

2008· article· en· W4301735374 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin Riopel, Lévis Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolume (thermodynamics)BotanySalicaceaeWoody plantBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

$\bullet$ In Quebec (Canada), predicting net merchantable volume of standing trees is essential to adjust stumpage fees. Furthermore, round-wood end use is important in the provincial forest management context because it is used to split the allowable annual cut among the different mill types. $\bullet$ A method relying on linear, binomial and cumulative logit regressions is proposed to predict both decay volume and round-wood end use volume. Tree age, height and quality, as well as ecological region, stand origin and presence of Phellinus tremulae (Bond.) Bond. & Boriss. and Ceratocystis fimbriata (Ellis & Halst.) fungi are the main factors that contribute to the presence and the proportion of decayed merchantable volume. Once the net merchantable volume is estimated, its division into round-wood end use is estimated through a series of steps involving the presence of Phellinus tremulae, saw log height, stem quality and size as explanatory variables. The first step is a multinomial regression which predicts the number of end uses (pulp wood, low-grade saw logs, saw logs, low-grade veneer, and veneer) that are present in the stem. A series of logistic regressions then determines the presence of each end use, with linear regressions predicting the round-wood volume of each end use.

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)0.001
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 score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.184 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)Same topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207