Optimal tree architecture for high‐yield yellowhorn (<i>Xanthoceras sorbifolium</i>) management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tree architectural attributes demonstrate a significant association with fruit yield. Yellowhorn is the future bioenergy tree in China; however, the species suffers from high reproductive energy and exceedingly low reproductive output. To optimize yellowhorn management and pinpoint priority trees featuring optimal architecture, we employed machine learning modeling to develop high fruit yielding predictive models using five yield indicators (dependent variables: FrW, SeW, ShW, FrW, and SeN) and five tree characteristics (independent variables: CA, TH, DGL, HLC, and MBN) of yellowhorn. Results showed that trees characterized by a substantial canopy area (>1.70 m2) and a large diameter at ground level (>3.71 cm) have been found to yield a higher fruit production. However, increased tree height does not invariably correlate with an elevated yield. Effective selection of high‐yielding individuals can be accomplished by restricting tree height within the range of 192–232.4 cm. This approach emphasizes the importance of integrating considerations of tree architecture into forestry management practices. Such integration can bolster productivity, thereby contributing to both the sustainability and economic viability of yellowhorn forests.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".