MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039373202 · doi:10.1139/x07-113

Differences in growth and wood property traits in cloned Norway spruce (<i>Picea abies</i>)

2007· article· en· W2039373202 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ane Zubizarreta Gerendiain, Heli Peltola, Pertti Pulkkinen, Raimo Jaatinen, Ari Pappinen, Seppo Kellomäki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAcademy of Finland
KeywordsPicea abiesBiologyPulpwoodTraitContext (archaeology)Tree breedingVolume (thermodynamics)Yield (engineering)Genetic gainBotanyWoody plantSelection (genetic algorithm)Phenotypic traitPhenotypeGenetic variationEcologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Volume growth has typically been used as a selection trait of prime importance in forest tree breeding. Less attention has been given to the genetic or phenotypic relationships between the growth or yield and wood density traits. In the above context, we aimed to investigate the phenotypic relationships among different growth, yield, and wood density traits of 20 Norway spruce ( Picea abies (L.) Karst.) clones grown in southeastern Finland, in order to identify whether a high growth rate was associated with low wood density in any of the clones. Compared with growth or yield traits, the wood density traits showed lower phenotypic variations. The phenotypic correlations between growth, yield, and wood density traits were, on average, from moderate to high, suggesting that selection for one trait would simultaneously affect the other traits. Compared with volume production, selection based on stem mass could be more profitable if a clonal stand is managed for pulpwood rather than mechanical wood processing and vice versa; whereas selection for overall wood density alone would reduce both the stem volume and stem mass. However, by compromising the gain or loss in wood density and stem volume, clones with high stem volume and a relatively high wood density could be found.

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 score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations41
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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