MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968274302 · doi:10.1139/x06-170

Comparison of early height growth between white spruce seedlings and rooted cuttings

2006· article· en· W1968274302 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Jean Beaulieu, M. Bernier-Cardou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Forest Service
KeywordsCuttingPropaguleBiologyTree breedingVegetative reproductionHorticulturePopulationBotanyProgeny testingWoody plantForestrySelection (genetic algorithm)GeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early height growth of eastern white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) rooted cuttings was compared with that of seedlings using annual measurements collected over 5 years in a farm field test replicated on three sites. The experiment included 148 full-sib families obtained from controlled crossings of superior trees selected for a white spruce breeding population in Quebec. Fifteen additional seedlots were used as controls. The average growth rate of seedlings (37.3 cm·year–1) was slightly larger than that of rooted cuttings (36.2 cm·year–1). The yearly growth rate increased over the test period, and it did so at a somewhat higher rate for the seedlings. The relative size of the estimated variance components and the moderate rank correlations of full-sib family height growth features between the two propagule types suggest that tree breeders should favour seedlings over rooted cuttings to rank families for selection purposes, but vegetative propagation would prove useful for bulking up scarce valuable genotypes.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207