MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133166881

The effects of Land-Use on Tree Health: A Study of Public Trees in the Town of Halton Hills

2025· other· W7133166881 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Fuad Janjua

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2025
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsTree healthTree (set theory)Forest healthScale (ratio)Public healthEcosystemUrban forestry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study looked at the effects of species, DBH and land-use type on tree health condition. Approximately 5000 trees were inventoried in the Town of Halton Hills, Ontario, on 3 different land-use types (parks, facilities and cemeteries). Tree health condition was rated on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being in excellent condition and 5 being dead/death imminent. Results showed significant differences in tree health among species, with most species in good condition (mean condition <2), though Austrian pine and green ash were more vulnerable. Land-use type also significantly affected health, with cemetery trees being in slightly worse condition than those in parks or facilities. Larger DBH classes were linked to lower health condition ratings, suggesting size or age-related stress. Species–land-use interactions indicated maples fared worse in facilities, while thick-barked species, such as oaks and pines, were more resilient in parks. These findings emphasize the importance of species selection, site-specific management, and root and soil protection, in efforts to improve overall tree health status. Recommended practices include root protection, soil mulching, and monitoring soil compaction and nutrients, informing urban forestry strategies to sustain tree health and ecosystem services.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→French-language works237,207→