The development of improved willow clones for eastern North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efforts aimed at genetic improvement of Salix are increasing in North America. Most of these are directed towards developing improved clones for biomass production, phytoremediation, nutrient fitters, and stream bank stabilization in the Northeast and North-central United States. Native species are of primary interest, but a small number of clones containing non-native germplasm are also being used in the breeding program to provide valuable traits. Parent combinations for controlled crosses are being selected with the hope of maximizing the probability of producing clones exhibiting heterosis for traits of interest, such as rapid early growth, pest resistance, general adaptability, etc. The present strategy is to test as many parent clone combinations as possible, and then repeat the most promising crosses to produce large families from which the best clones will be selected for further testing. Molecular fingerprinting technology will be applied to accelerate the rate of improvement. National and international cooperation would facilitate regional clone development and promotion of willow as a bioenergy crop. Key words: Salix, biomass production, breeding, heterosis, molecular fingerprinting
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".