MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014712293 · doi:10.1139/x01-167

Growth, morphology, and cold hardiness of <i>Chamaecyparis nootkatensis</i> seedlings originating from an abbreviated reproductive cycle

2002· article· en· W2014712293 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Marilyn L. Cherry, Yousry A. El‐Kassaby

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurfgrass Adaptation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChamaecyparisHardiness (plants)SeedlingShootBiologyHorticultureCupressaceaeBotanySeed orchardJuvenilePopulationGerminationThujaEcologyCultivarPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common garden study investigated growth, morphology, and cold hardiness of yellow-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis (D. Don) Spach) seedlings originating from seed that had matured at an accelerated rate. This early maturing seed, produced at a low-elevation southern Vancouver Island seed orchard, was known to have similar germinability and seedling morphology as high-elevation normally maturing seeds. Population differences in 3-year-old seedlings were evident only in shoot harvest index (ratio of stem/shoot dry weight). The amount of stem elongation that occurred prior to the formation of secondary foliage (juvenile height) and harvest index were weakly correlated with source elevation at which maternal parents were developed. Traits that exhibited no discernable differences between progeny from early maturing seed and the control normally maturing seed included midwinter cold hardiness testing and selected measures of shoot morphology and growth. The control seedlings had significantly less height growth prior to the transition of primary foliage to secondary foliage formation than did the seedlings originating from early maturing seed.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTurfgrass Adaptation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207