MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994416914 · doi:10.1139/x05-219

Influence of selective breeding on the development of juvenile wood in Sitka spruce

2005· article· en· W1994416914 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Andrew D. S. Cameron, S J Lee, A.K. Livingston, J. A. Petty

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenilePithTracheidMicrofibrilHorticultureBotanyBiologyPicea abiesAnnual growth %Growth rateDouglas firAnimal scienceEcologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of selective breeding on juvenile wood formation in 24-year-old Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) was investigated. Properties associated with juvenile wood in fast-growing progenies were compared with those from slow-growing progenies and an unimproved control of similar growth rate (origin Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia, Canada). Large differences in properties associated with juvenile wood, namely high annual ring width, high microfibril angle, low density, and low latewood proportion, were observed in the first 12 or so rings from the pith between treatments. These properties were significantly inferior in the fast-growing progenies in comparison with the slow-growing treatments. From the 13th ring outwards, no significant differences were found between treatments in all attributes measured. Coefficients of determination (R 2 ) between ring width and wood properties measured from rings 1 to 12 revealed only weak associations. Conversely, R 2 values calculated for rings 13–19 revealed significant associations, indicating that density, latewood proportion, and tracheid length and diameter declined, while microfibril angle increased, with increasing ring width. The period of formation and the properties of juvenile wood appear to be largely independent of growth rate. High growth rate in the mature wood remains a concern in terms of wood quality.

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)0.001
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 score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations27
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207