Optimum selection age for wood density in loblolly pine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic and phenotypic parameters for core wood density of Pinus taeda L. were estimated for ages ranging from 5 to 25 years at two sites in southern United States. Heritability estimates on an individual-tree basis for core density were lower than expected (0.200.31). Ageage genetic correlations were higher than phenotypic correlations, particularly those involving young ages. Ageage genetic correlations were high, being greater than 0.75. Ageage genetic correlations had a moderately linear relationship, while ageage phenotypic correlations had a strong linear relationship with natural logarithm of age ratio. Optimum selection age for core density was estimated to be 5 years when calculations were based on both genetic and phenotypic correlations. However, age 5 was the youngest examined in this study and optimum selection age may be younger than 5. Generally, the optimum selection age was robust to changes in breeding phase and assumptions concerning age-related variation in heritability estimates. Early selection for core density would result in a correlated increase in earlywood density but little progress in latewood density or latewood proportion at maturity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".