MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382243861 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2023-0052

Determining the effectiveness of using acoustic velocity as an indirect measurement of branchiness in standing longleaf pine

2023· article· en· W4382243861 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jacks M.T. Hausle, Jodi A. Forrester, Trevor Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsAnimal sciencePinus <genus>BiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Branches reduce stem quality, and the level of the effect is determined by the geometry, size, and number, of associated knots. Quantifying branchiness is difficult, as visual estimates are subjective, and mechanical measurements are impractical. Acoustic velocity (AV) is a relatively novel measurement capturing the speed stress travels through wood. AV is correlated with wood stiffness and is affected by internal characteristics like knots. This project tested AV as an indirect branchiness metric by measuring AV, height, diameter, and counting branches classified by diameter on 255 standing 8 year old longleaf pine ( Pinus palustris). AV was highly correlated with height (r = 0.76, p &lt; 0.0001) and slenderness (r = 0.52, p &lt; 0.0001). AV was moderately correlated with large living branches (diameter &gt; 2.54 cm) (r = −0.27, p &lt; 0.0001), but not correlated with total branches. Height, slenderness, and the count of large living branches (diameter &gt; 2.54 cm) were included in the selected model for AV. Inclusion of dead or small (diameter &lt; 2.54 cm) branches reduced model power. The best model captured 11% of the variation in AV, of which branches explained 5%. We conclude that AV does not appropriately quantify individual tree branchiness, but may be suitable for comparing populations such as families or provenances.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207