MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032021010 · doi:10.1139/x06-224

Characteristics and development of improved <i>Pinus sylvestris</i> in northern Sweden

2007· article· en· W2032021010 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B. Andersson, Björn Elfving, Torgny Persson, Tore Ericsson, Johan Kroon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScots pineForestryPinus <genus>Site indexLatitudeCompetition (biology)BiologyWoody plantTree (set theory)BotanyHorticultureEcologyGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic differences are described between improved and unimproved Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in 36 northern Swedish field tests, covering wide geographical and climatic gradients (latitude 62.3°–67.8°N). Improved trees were represented by progenies from controlled crosses of first-generation, phenotypically selected plus trees, whereas unimproved trees originated from unselected natural stands. Improved trees were superior in terms of height (9.2%), stem diameter (5.4%), and stem volume (18.9%) at the age of 27.4 years. The height growth of improved trees from ages of 10.5 years to 27.4 years was similar to that of unimproved trees at a site with a higher site index. Improved trees had a 5.5% greater height/diameter ratio (i.e., were more slender) than unimproved trees, whereas differences between the tree categories in terms of survival and frequencies of ramicorns and stem breaks were minor and mostly insignificant. Little or no interaction between tree categories and site conditions for growth characters was found, implying that the results are generally applicable. No difference in response to competition between the improved and unimproved trees was detected. However, differences in their reactions to transfer were found: survival rates increased more and height growth decreased less in improved trees than in unimproved trees when grown at a site south of their geographical origin. The use of competition and height indices based on neighbouring trees to adjust for bias and site variability in single-tree plots significantly improved the estimates.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

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

Citations44
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207