MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409237519 · doi:10.1017/qpb.2025.9

To flow or to grow? Impacts of tapping on sugar maple

2025· article· en· W4409237519 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueQuantitative Plant Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPlant-Derived Bioactive Compounds
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMapleTappingSugarXylemBiologyEnvironmental scienceHorticultureBotanyAgroforestryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Maple sugaring is a rapidly growing industry in North America. Maples are tapped annually, thus undergoing repeated wounding and resource reduction for sap water collection. We aim to understand the effects of tapping and sap exudation on annual radial wood growth and xylem traits in sugar maple ( Acer saccharum Marsh.), utilizing eight mature trees monitored during 2018-2021 in Simoncouche, Canada. Compared to the first year of tapping, trees exhibited a 49.7% drop in tree-ring width. Vessel density, potential hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic vessel diameter decreased, but not lumen area. We showed evidence of a trade-off among sap extraction, resource depletion and reduced tree growth. The repeated reduction of resources through tapping can have a detrimental effect on tree growth, even if the effect on the hydraulic function remains marginal. These insights underscore the need for sustainable tapping practices that consider the long-term health and productivity of sugar maple trees.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.283 · 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