MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regression tree analysis subdivides the data of the 2002 clonal series into five genetically distinct groups.

2015· other· en· W6922964356 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGerman Social Sciences and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoothillsElevation (ballistics)Range (aeronautics)BorealSeries (stratigraphy)TaigaCentral HighlandsRegression analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Most variance in six variables (5-year DBH and height measured at three sites) is explained by three latitudinal splits at 53°, 56°, and 59°. The two very northern provenances perform very poorly at all sites except Site 10, where they show average growth. The five most southern sources perform above average at all sites. The 13 sources from the boreal highlands (≥523 m) perform somewhat below average at all sites while the 14 northern lower elevation sources perform slightly above average at Site 10 and slightly below average at Site 31. A large group of 41 sources from the foothills and central Alberta shows a wide range of performance, but no geographic patterns of genetic variation.</p>

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2250.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicGerman Social Sciences and HistoryFrench-language works237,207