MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132124065

Testing of Canadian Douglas-fir height in juvenile phase

2013· article· W7132124065 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vera Lavadinović, Vladan Popović, E. Popov, Vukan Lavadinović

Bibliographic record

VenueOmorika - Repository of the Faculty of Forestry, Belgrade · 2013
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenilePhase (matter)Significant difference
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evropskim šumama gotovo da dominiraju introdukovane vrsta drveća koje se javljaju na širokom spektru uslova staništa. Oni su našli svoje mesto u klasifikaciji evropskih tipova šuma. Novi evropski tipovi šuma (EFTs-2006) su organizovani prema hijerarhijskom sistemu klasifikacije koja su struktuirana u 14 kategorija i 78 vrsta. Introdukcija šumarski vrsta zabeležena za sve regione, a najveći broj je u Africi (219 vrsta) a najmanji u evidenciji šumskih vrsta: u Evropi (95 vrsta) i Pacifiku (97 vrsta). Većina šumskih vrsta za introdukciju, su sa ciljem da se unapredi ekonomska, proizvodna i tržišna vrednost šumskog privrednog fonda. Opšte zapažanje je da je od introdukovanih vrsta Duglazija je njazastupljenija u većini zemalja Evrope. U Srbiji program introdukcije duglazije započet je postavljanjem provenijeničnog testa sa originalnim poreklom semena iz Severne Amerike. Nastavljeno je sa osnivanjem provenijeničnog testa duglazije poreklom iz Kanade. U radu su prikazani rezultati testiranja visina sadnica duglazije, različitih provenijencija sa originalnim poreklom semena iz Kanade. Značajne razlike između prvenijencija su potvrdile opravdanost testiranja introdukovanih vrsta putem provenijeničnog testa.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOmorika - Repository of the Faculty of Forestry, BelgradeSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207