MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041114667 · doi:10.1139/x08-051

Wood density variability in successive breeding populations of maritime pine

2008· article· en· W2041114667 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laurent Bouffier, Philippe Rozenberg, Annie Raffin, Antoine Kremer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut National de la Recherche Agronomique
KeywordsPithPinus pinasterBark (sound)BiologyGenetic variabilitySelection (genetic algorithm)BotanyHeritabilityPinus <genus>DendrochronologyTree breedingHorticultureWoody plantAgronomyEcologyGenotypeEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth and form are the two main traits used for genetic improvement of maritime pine ( Pinus pinaster Ait.) in the southwest of France. In this paper, wood density is studied to answer two main questions: Is there a general trend for density variability throughout tree development and has selection indirectly reduced wood density variability over breeding populations, owing to genetic unfavourable correlation with growth? Wood density and its components were studied in three polycross tests, each representative of one of the successive breeding populations. Wood density was measured with an X-ray densitometer in approximately 50 families per test with >1900 trees. A preliminary study showed that bark-to-pith ring indexing allows for a better estimation of genetic effects than does pith-to-bark indexing. Genetic variability of wood density appears to be highly dependent on the year considered and no general pattern can be detected over time. Whereas the variability of selected traits is known to have decreased over breeding populations, no significant change was found for variability of wood density.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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