MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004172911 · doi:10.5558/tfc86775-6

Genetically based resistance to the white pine weevil in jack pine and eastern white pine

2010· article· en· W2004172911 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Alice Verrez, Dan T. Quiring, Thibaut Leinekugel Le Cocq, G. W. Adams, Yill Sung Park

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceJ. D. Irving (Canada)University of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWeevilBiologyWhite (mutation)Resistance (ecology)Tree breedingBotanyHeritabilityCurculionidaeHorticultureWoody plantPinus <genus>ForestryAgronomyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

White pine weevil (Pissodes strobi Peck) damage was evaluated in one white pine (Pinus strobus L.) and four jack pine(Pinus banksiana Lamb) half-sib family test sites to determine the role of tree genotype in resistance to the weevil. Halfsibfamily explained a significant proportion of the variation in weevil attack at all sites. Estimates of family (0.16-0.54)and individual (0.09-0.24) heritabilities of jack pine resistance to white pine weevil were moderate. Estimates of family(0.37) and individual (0.22) heritability of resistance of white pine to the weevil were also moderate when the percentageof test trees damaged by the weevil was relatively low, but were insignificant four years later when more than three-quartersof trees were damaged. Significant positive correlations between mean tree height and mean incidence of trees damagedby the weevil were observed for four of seven site-years but relationships were weak, suggesting that any cost, withrespect to height growth, to breeding weevil resistant trees may be small.Key words: Pinus, Pissodes strobi, trade-offs, tree improvement, tree resistance, white pine weevil.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207