Determining hybridization in jack pine and lodgepole pine from British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to find wood quality evidence of hybridization between jack pine (Pinus banksiana) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia) in northeast British Columbia (BC). To determine if wood and fiber traits could be used as distinguishing features among jack pine, lodgepole pine, and their hybrids, differences in morphology and wood and fiber traits were related to the genetic identity of each sample. Thirty samples each of pure lodgepole pine, pure jack pine, and potential hybrids were collected from the Prince George area of BC, the Smoky Lake area of Alberta, and the Fort Nelson region of BC, respectively. Two 10-mm cores (bark to bark) were taken from each tree and analyzed for fiber length and coarseness, microfibril angle (MFA), basic density, earlywood:latewood ratios, and cell dimensions. Needle and cone morphology was used to distinguish among species groups in the field. Based on genetically identified samples, the fiber traits that best differentiated among pure jack pine, lodgepole pine, and hybrids were MFA and cell area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".