Functional Traits of Selected Tree Species in Harvard Forest, New Hampshire, and Southern Quebec 2015
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing evidence suggests that species' phenological responses may predict their performance with warming, but this work has generally ignored whether phenology is correlated with other traits known to drive plant performance. This is perhaps surprising given that interest in functional traits has also increased in recent decades, yet within the functional traits literature there has been an equally limited consideration of phenology, perhaps because robustly estimating it is time-intensive, and simple field estimates will show extreme variation across sites of different latitudes and climate regimes. Here we collected a suite of trait data on the same species for which we collected phenological data (see related dataset HF314, Leaf and Flower Phenology of Woody Plant Species at Harvard Forest and Southern Quebec 2015) to help address this gap. We focused on populations of trees in temperate forests in the Northeast face, which face different environmental conditions across their ranges. This project measured functional traits of trees at two to four sites, to provide a foundation for studies on the relationship between range shift, phenology, and functional traits.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 it