Influence of Four Spacings between Trees and Four Samplings Heights on Selected Wood Quality Attributes of White Spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four Picea glauca (Moench) Voss trees grown at each of four square spacing intensities between trees: 1.2 m, 1.8 m, 4.3 m, and 6.1 m in a plantation established in 1967 in the Petawawa Research Forest, Ontario, Canada (lat. 45.59° N, long. 77.25° W, elev. 168 m) and sampled at four different heights (1.3 m, 4.3 m, 7.3 m, 10.3 m) were used to study the impact of spacing between trees and sampling height on nine wood quality attributes (ring width, ring density, tracheid length, tracheid diameter, latewood proportion, intra-ring density variation, ring area, earlywood width, and latewood width). In the juvenile wood, ring width was wider and ring density higher than in the mature wood. Tracheid length was longer and tracheid diameter wider in the mature wood compared to the juvenile wood. The variation of ring density between the two wood zones was limited, and latewood proportion did not show any difference with wood zone. Sampling height induced variation in more wood quality attributes than did spacing. Except for growth rate, spacing between trees did not significantly impact wood quality attributes. Most of these variations were registered between widely different spacings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".