Investigation of limestone ecotypes of white spruce based on a provenance test series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous laboratory and field studies have presented evidence for the existence of limestone ecotypes in white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss). Remeasurements of the range-wide 410 series of provenance trials were used for further evaluation of the existence of these ecotypes. In 2001, heights were measured of 23 provenances grown at four test sites in Ontario, all located south of 46°N. Bedrock classification for test sites and provenances by limestone or non-limestone parent material was done using a 1993 data set of the Ontario Geological Survey. Analysis of variance revealed significant differences among test sites and provenances only. No significant interactions consistent with the existence of limestone ecotypes were detected. This finding is in contrast to that of an earlier field study that detected a strong interaction between test site and provenance bedrock type (p < 0.001). Examination of the relative performance of individual provenances from limestone and non-limestone bedrock types revealed differences in performance at the four different test sites but few instances supporting the existence of limestone ecotypes. Although these more recent results generally support a pattern of between-stand variation in southern Ontario, they do not disprove the existence of limestone ecotypes, owing to the nature of the 410-series test design and the classification of provenances according to bedrock type instead of actual soil analyses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".