MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2014644988 · doi:10.1139/x04-176

Pollination and cone morphology affect cone and seed production in lodgepole pine seed orchards

2005· article· en· W2014644988 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John N. Owens, Jordan Bennett, Sylvia J. L’Hirondelle

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollinationBiologySeed orchardPhenologyPollenOvuleBotanyHorticultureFructificationAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe the phenology and mechanisms of pollen-cone and seed-cone development in lodgepole pine in the interior of British Columbia and the methods for monitoring cone phenology, pollination, seed production, and causes of seed and cone losses in seed orchards over the 15-month reproductive cycle. Pollination lasted about 2 weeks, between mid-May and mid-June. Pollen shedding and female receptivity showed homogamy, protandry, or protogyny depending on weather, site, and year. Morphological and developmental features explain why pollination as early as stage 3 was most successful and why self-pollination led to a seriously reduced production of filled seed. Early pollination increased the seed potential per cone and consequently the filled seed per cone. Cone drop occurred when less than 80% of ovules were pollinated per cone and was higher in trees from Prince George than those in the Okanagan Valley. Misting of trees and mechanical blowing of pollen in the orchards did not increase filled seed per cone. Clonal effect was the most important factor in all trials and has implications for orchard management.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations41
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→