MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965451693 · doi:10.5558/tfc77271-2

Genetically modified poplars in context

2001· article· en· W1965451693 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOregon State UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyContext (archaeology)AgroforestryHarmBiotechnologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poplars (genus Populus) have emerged as a model organism for forest biotechnology, and genetic modification (GM: asexual gene transfer) is more advanced for this genus than for any other tree. The goal of this paper is to consider the benefits expected from the use of GM poplar trees, and the most significant claims made for environmental harm, by comparing them to impacts and uncertainties that are generally accepted as part of intensive tree culture. We focus on the four traits with greatest commercialization potential in the near term: wood modification, herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, and flowering control. After field trials and selection of the top performing trees, similar to that during conventional poplar breeding, GM poplars appear vigorous and express their new traits reliably. The ecological issues expected from use of GM poplars appear similar in scope to those managed routinely during conventional plantation culture, which includes the use of exotic and hybrid genotypes, short rotations, intensive weed control, fertilization, and density control. The single-gene traits under consideration for commercial use are unlikely to cause a significant expansion in ecological niche, and thus to substantially alter poplar's ability to "invade" wild populations. We conclude that the ecological risks posed by GM poplars are similar in magnitude, though not in detail, to those of routine poplar culture. We also argue that the tangible economic and environmental benefits of GM poplars for some uses warrant their near-term adoption—if coupled with adaptive research and monitoring—so that their economic and ecological benefits, and safety, can be studied on commercially and ecologically relevant scales. We believe that the growing demand for both wood products and ecological services of forests justifies vigorous efforts to increase wood production on land socially zoned for tree agriculture, plantations, or horticulture. This is the key reason for poplar biotechnology: the combination of economic efficiency with reduction of farm and forestry impact on the landscape. Key words: biotechnology, environmental risk assessment, forestry, genetic engineering, Populus

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.219 · 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