Variation in xylem anatomy of selected populations of lodgepole pine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variation in xylem anatomy among selected populations of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) was examined using digital image analysis based on an annual growth ring (age 10) per tree. Four subpopulations were selected using the following criteria for height growth and wood density: (i) fast growth and high density; (ii) slow growth and high density; (iii) fast growth and low density; and (iv) slow growth and low density. Significant differences were found among subpopulations for several anatomical parameters including tracheid density, lumen size, and cell wall thickness that may affect the economic value and utilization of wood. Principal component analysis indicate that the first four principal components (PCs) were associated with (i) ring area (PC1), (ii) earlywood density (PC2), (iii) latewood density (PC3), and (iv) lumen shape in earlywood (PC4), suggesting that these aspects of wood properties and growth are controlled by different sets of genes. Relative contributions of total number of tracheids, tracheid lumen size, and cell wall thickness to ring area and correlations between cell wall area proportion and X-ray density are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".