MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043388891

Soil-site relations for trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) in Northwestern Ontario / by Yanjun Li

2017· other· en· W7043388891 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisSoil waterSiltSite indexHydrology (agriculture)Regression analysisLandformRegressionRange (aeronautics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil-site relations for trembling aspen in Northwestern Ontario were
\nstudied using 98 site plots representing a wide range of glacial
\nlandforms, soil conditions, and site quality. Site index was related to
\nfeatures of soil and topography using multivariate statistical analyses
\nincluding principal component analysis, multiple regression analysis and
\ncluster analysis. Site index ( SI = height of dominant and codominant
\ntrembling aspen trees at 50 years breast-height age) was used as the
\ndependent variable; 45 soil and topographic values were used as
\nindependent variables. Principal component analysis combined with
\ncorrelation coefficients was used to select 10 variables from 22
\nvariables that were closely associated with site index; these 10 variables
\nare not closely correlated with each other. Preliminary regressions
\nindicated that the soil-site relationships were much better expressed
\nwhen plots were stratified into three landform types as opposed to a
\nsingle regression combining all plots.
\nFinal regression equations were computed describing soil-site
\nrelationships on soils developed from glaciofluvial, morainal, and
\nlacustrinal landforms. The final regression equation for the glaciofluvial
\nsoils included depth to root restricting layer and drainage class as site index
\npredictor variables. The final regression equation for the morainal
\nsoils included silt plus clay content of the A horizon, coarse fragment
\ncontent of the C horizon, and depth to root restricting layer. The final
\nregression equation for the lacustrine soils included the clay content of
\nthe C horizon, and depth to mottles.
\nThe 98 plots were clustered into six groups representing different soil
\nconditions. The FEC soils S3, S4, S5 were the best sites; the SS8, SS7, S7,
\nS8, SS5, SS4 were the worst sites for aspen. However, cluster results
\nwere not significant due to a wide range of site indices within each of the
\nsix defined groups. Large standard deviations and standard errors of the
\nmean exist in most groups. Thus the use of these groups is not
\nrecommended for estimating aspen site index.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient 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 score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.220 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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