MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7076957569

Yellow Birch

2024· article· en· W7076957569 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigitalCommons (California Polytechnic State University) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYellow birchBalsamHardwoodVeneerScarificationBetula pubescensAbundance (ecology)Vegetation (pathology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) is a signature species of Maine’s Acadian forest and the Provincial tree of Quebec, naturally growing in mixture with red spruce and balsam fir on mesic lower-elevation sites. Historically, it comprised 10-15% of presettlement old-growth forests and currently maintains a merchantable density similar to sugar maple in the beech-birch-maple forest type, representing about 11% of total tree density. Economically, yellow birch is one of Maine's most valuable hardwoods, historically used for interior trim and flooring, and notably for "mosquito bombers" during World War II. It remains a staple species in North America's hardwood veneer industry, with high market prices for quality logs. The species' abundance is limited by its specialized regeneration ecology; its small, wind-dispersed seeds require specific microsites with dependable moisture and partial sunlight, such as bare mineral soil or rotten wood, often found in large tree-fall gaps. This can lead to "stilt rooting" as original substrates decay. Silviculturally, yellow birch is considered "high-maintenance" due to low seed viability, shallow roots, and susceptibility to deer browse. While mechanical scarification has been attempted to improve regeneration, results are mixed, sometimes promoting competing vegetation and destroying advance growth of maple. The species is also prone to epicormic branching and has experienced mysterious dieback events.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.191 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigitalCommons (California Polytechnic State University)Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207