MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1833522995 · doi:10.1139/x11-060

Comparison of fixed and focal point seed transfer systems for reforestation and assisted migration: a case study for interior spruce in British Columbia

2011· article· en· W1833522995 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nicholas K. Ukrainetz, Gregory A. O’Neill, Barry Jaquish

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaMinistry of Forests
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReforestationPicea engelmanniiForestryPopulationPhenologyClimate changeGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyMathematicsBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In forestry, science-based seed transfer systems, the foundation of effective reforestation programs, will likely be used in some form to mitigate the negative effects of climate change. In this study, we developed fixed and focal point seed transfer systems for interior spruce ( Picea glauca (Moench) Voss, Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm., and their hybrids) in British Columbia, Canada, and compared the effectiveness of both systems. Growth, phenology, and physiology traits were measured for 112 populations, and population means were transformed to principal components that were modeled using climate variables and multiple regression analysis. Compared with the fixed seed zone system, the focal point system had a greater area of seed use for a given risk of maladaptation. The relationship between growth and adaptive distance (i.e., adaptive similarity between test populations and populations local to test sites) was used to calculate critical seed transfer distances for focal point seed zones, which were defined according to expected forfeiture of growth. Changes in climate observed over the past 100 years and predicted in the next one third of a rotation were used to calculate appropriate assisted migration distances and develop methods for incorporating assisted migration into a focal point seed transfer system.

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)0.002
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 score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations63
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207