MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010565047 · doi:10.1139/x04-148

Silviculture alters the genetic structure of an eastern hemlock forest in Maine, USA

2005· article· en· W2010565047 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gary J. Hawley, Paul G. Schaberg, Donald H. DeHayes, John C. Brissette

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsTsugaBiologySilvicultureAlleleForest managementSelection (genetic algorithm)Genetic variationTree breedingEcologyWoody plantGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated the influence of long-term silvicultural selection on the genetic structure of an eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr.) forest at the Penobscot Experimental Forest, in Maine, USA. Plots in this forest received one of the following three treatments: (1) selection cuts in which small and poorly formed trees were preferentially removed in 1957 and 1977; (2) diameter-limit cuts in which trees at least 24 cm in diameter were removed in 1952, 1973, and 1994; or (3) no harvesting (an unmanaged control). Because of an association between the occurrence of rare alleles and tree phenotypes, phenotypically based tree removals were associated with a shift in allelic frequency. Where smaller trees with inferior phenotypes were preferentially removed (selection cut), the number of rare alleles and estimates of future genetic potential were lower than in the control group. Because of the theoretical long-term evolutionary benefit of unique gene forms, the loss of rare alleles could diminish the potential of populations to adapt to and survive ongoing environmental change. In contrast, alleles that were rare in the control group existed at a higher frequency in the diameter-limit cut. However, productivity was low in this stand, where the frequency of characteristically rare alleles was artificially amplified.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

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

Citations45
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207