MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2055924232 · doi:10.1139/x08-138

The importance of being the first pollen in the strobili of Scots pine

2008· article· en· W2055924232 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Saila Varis, Arja Santanen, Anne Pakkanen, Pertti Pulkkinen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrobilusPollenScots pineBiologySeed orchardBotanyPollinationPollen sourcePinus <genus>HorticulturePollinator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Timing of pollen arrival may affect the level of seeds fertilized by pollen from outside seed orchards, especially in seed orchards of Scots pine ( Pinus sylvestris L.) established in southern Finland with stock from northern populations. We performed sequential pollination experiments with Scots pine pollen collected from seed orchard clones originating from southern and northern Finland and recipient strobili in clones originating from southern Finland. When southern pollen was introduced first, seeds were sired equally by northern and southern genotypes. When northern pollen was introduced first, northern genotypes were found in 75% of the resulting seeds. When both pollen types were introduced at the same time, the resulting seed crop was split almost equally between northern and southern genotypes. These results do not unconditionally support the idea that the first pollen grain in the pollen chamber always fertilizes the ovum; instead, they suggest a more complex way of competition between pollen grains.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→