MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7006593113

Trembling aspen height-age models for British Columbia

2007· article· en· W7006593113 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Exchange (Washington State University) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSite indexCalibrationTest siteProductivityIndex (typography)SilvicultureModel validationYield (engineering)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides), a common hardwood species in the interior of British Columbia, Canada is becoming an increasingly important timber crop species, especially in the northeast corner of the province. Better growth and yield information for aspen is required to manage this species properly. Height-age models for estimating site height and site index are provided in this paper. One-hundred and thirty-five stem analysis plots were established in six biogeoclimatic zones. Three trees in the 0.04 ha plots were selected and stem analysed, and ecological data were collected at each plot. The stem analysis data were split into a model calibration and test data set. Two models were fit to the calibration data: a base model and an extended model that is calibrated for the six biogeoclimatic zones. Both models adequately estimate the height of trembling aspen in British Columbia. The base model was compared to two models for aspen in Alberta, which showed that there were no large differences in the height growth of aspen, except on lower productivity sites.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Exchange (Washington State University)Same topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207