MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097094469

THE OCCURRENCE AND GROWTH OF TREMBLING ASPEN IN NEWFOUNDLAND

2016· article· en· W7097094469 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivitySuckerThinningWoody plantSilvicultureAnnual growth %
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Newfoundland, stands of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) are relatively common only in the north-central part of the Island, where the average annual rainfall is less than 50 inches and the mean July temperature exceeds 60 F. Most stands are found on fresh, sandy-loam till sites, where conditions are generally favorable to root sucker development. The average growth rate of aspen stands is excellent, exceeding that of other native species on similar sites by a considerable margin. Basal-area and volume growth is also better than that of most mainland stands beyond an age of about 50 years. Cull volumes are no higher than those of most other native species, and are lower than in comparable aspen stands from other parts of North America. Clonal variations in productivity seem to be present among the stands that were sampled. Trembling aspen is considered to have great potential for commercial utilization in view of the expected increases in the demand for wood on the Island. However, the acreage of aspen stands on suitable forest sites, of which there are estimated to be more than 1 million acres within the most favorable climatic zone, must be increased considerably through such techniques as clear-cutting, prescribed burning, and scarification before commercial operations can become feasible.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207