MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7000178887

Estimating site quality from early height growth of white spruce and red pine plantations in the Thunder Bay area / James S. Thrower. --

2017· other· en· W7000178887 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRed pineBayThunderBlack sprucePlant stemScots pine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth intercepts and breast height-age height growth curves were developed for estimating the site quality using early height growth in white spruce {Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) and red pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.) plantations in the Thunder Bay, Ontario area. These
\nmethods for estimating site quality were developed from height growth data obtained using annual node measurements and stem analyses of three dominant, undamaged, trees in each of 46 white spruce and 25 red pine plots located throughout the Thunder Bay area.
\nWhite spruce growth intercepts were computed using series of one through seven internodes from eight starting heights between 0 and 3.0 m. Red pine growth intercepts were computed using series of one through 10 internodes from the same eight starting heights. The best estimates of white spruce and red pine site quality were obtained from the average length
\nof the first three, four, and five internodes above 2.0 m, and the first three, four, and five internodes above 1.5 m, respectively.
\nBoth white spruce and red pine height growth patterns were best described by an expanded Chapman-Richards function capable of expressing polymorphic height growth patterns. These height growth patterns compared well with those of eastern Ontario and the Lake States. Height growth below breast height for both species was very erratic and was not
\nrelated to site quality. Consequently, total height-age height growth curves that included this
\nearly erratic height growth did not provide accurate estimates of site quality in these white spruce and red pine plantations. Growth intercepts provided accurate estimates of site quality in early years. However, breast height-age height growth curves provided more accurate estimates of site quality when plantations exceeded the ages required for these growth intercepts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University)French-language works237,207