MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7044058264

Within and between-species competition and individual tree growth in a young jack pine-aspen stand / by Mugasha Ancelm Godfrey. --

2017· other· en· W7044058264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrown (dentistry)Competition (biology)Tree (set theory)Range (aeronautics)Jack pineSubject (documents)Sampling (signal processing)Thinning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The competitive relationship between jack pine (Finns banksiana Lamb.) and trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) was studied in an 8-year-old mixed stand in North Central Ontario, Canada. During the summer of 1984, a total of 298 subject trees were selected at random within the stand. Half of the study trees were jack pine, the other half aspen. From the trees neighbouring each subject tree, competitor trees were identified by
\nmeans of a modified horizontal point sample centered on the subject tree. The data include a wide range of conditions with respect to both stand density and composition. Subject trees were measured for initial size (stemwood volume, stem radius at stump height and height)
\nand the 1983 annual increment of the same size attributes. Live crown ratio at the time of sampling was also measured. The current annual increment data were analysed with respect to initial subject tree size and competitive environment by means of multiple linear regression. The objective was to investigate a hierarchy of mutually exclusive hypotheses regarding the nature of the competitive interaction between the 2 study species. The results indicate that jack pine and aspen responded differently to competition, and that the competitive effect of the jack pine component was different than that of the aspen component when both species occurred in a mixture. Specifically, the annual volume increment and annual radial increment of aspen subject trees was affected only by the aspen
\ncomponent of the competing stand. The annual volume increment and annual radial increment of jack pine subject trees, on the other hand, were affected by both the jack pine and aspen components of the competing stand. Although the study is of limited scope, it does provide some interesting insights into the possible dynamics of mixed stands of these
\nimportant, and commonly associated, boreal species. The work also gives some indication that the competitive effect of aspen on jack pine may be sufficiently strong to warrant the consideration of silvicultural control in situations where jack pine is the crop species.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.202 · 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