<scp>PhenoCaB</scp>: a new phenological model based on carbon balance in boreal conifers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Traditional phenological models use chilling and thermal forcing (temperature sum or degree‐days) to predict budbreak. Because of the heightening impact of climate and other related biotic or abiotic stressors, a model with greater biological support is needed to better predict budbreak. Here, we present an original mechanistic model based on the physiological processes taking place before and during budbreak of conifers. As a general principle, we assume that phenology is driven by the carbon status of the plant, which is closely related to environmental variables and the annual cycle of dormancy–activity. The carbon balance of a branch was modelled from autumn to winter with cold acclimation and dormancy and from winter to spring when deacclimation and growth resumption occur. After being calibrated in a field experiment, the model was validated across a large area (> 34 000 km2), covering multiple conifers stands in Québec (Canada) and across heated plots for the SPRUCE experiment in Minnesota (USA). The model accurately predicted the observed dates of budbreak in both Québec (±3.98 d) and Minnesota (±7.98 d). The site‐independent calibration provides interesting insights on the physiological mechanisms underlying the dynamics of dormancy break and the resumption of vegetative growth in spring.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".