COMPARING GROWTH RING FEATURES OF MAHOGANY TREES AT THE FOREST’S EDGE AND IN THE INTERIOR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the growth ring features of mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) trees at the forest's edge and in the interior.The results revealed that the trees at the forest's edge exhibited an increase in the average ring width and density components compared to those in the forest interior.The growth rings were found to exhibit a radial trend, with the width decreasing from the pith towards the 7 th ring (Rings A), then gradually decreasing towards the 20 th ring (Rings B), and finally remaining relatively consistent towards the outer bark (Rings C).Although the specimens from Ring A of trees at the forest's edge did not exhibit more growth than those of trees in the forest interior, Rings B and C specimens of trees at the forest's edge had more growth than those in the forest interior.Furthermore, the ring density of Rings A and C specimens of trees at the forest's edge did not show any significant difference compared to those of trees in the forest interior.Ring B tree specimens at the forest's edge displayed a higher ring density compared to those in the forest interior.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".