MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6929395833 · doi:10.5071/29theubce2021-1dv.5.6

Short Rotation Energy Crops: Differences in Biomass Production of Twelve Taxa after Two Cutting Rotations

2021· article· en· W6929395833 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueETA Florence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Vocational Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaulowniaWillowSalicaceaeBiomass (ecology)Short rotation forestryclone (Java method)Tropics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay compares the productions of twelve different taxa of short rotation woody crops, from two consecutive harvests with tree years cutting rotation. The species and clones used were Princess tree, Canadian poplar (three clones), Field elm (tree clones), European white elm, Adafuel, Tamarisk, White willow and Plane tree. The species with the highest average productions per plant are poplars, paulownia and elms, with MC poplar clone and paulownia giving the greatest weights in the first cut. In the second cut, MC poplar reaches very high average production values, while rest of poplars, elms and paulownia are more even in this second cut. Regarding the average production per hectare, MC poplar clone stands out at first harvest, followed by Luisa Avanzo poplar clone, and Adafuel. Field elm Pareja and Curi-1 clones, as well as I-214 poplar clone, also achieve good productions. At second harvest, the MC clone poplar continues to stand out, with much difference from the other taxa, almost doubling the following taxon. With respect to the average increase in production between the first and second harvest, the taxon with the highest increase is I-214 poplar clone, followed by MC poplar clone, Tamarisk and Field elm Curi-2 clone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueETA FlorenceSame topicEducation and Vocational TrainingFrench-language works237,207