Genetics of wood stiffness and its component traits in<i>Pinus radiata</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential for breeding Pinus radiata D. Don to improve wood stiffness (modulus of elasticity, MoE) was examined by obtaining pith-to-bark cores from trees at breast height in two independent genetic trials. The effectiveness of early selection for stiffness and indirect selection on the component traits, microfibril angle (MfA) and wood density, was determined as well as the age-related changes in the genetic variation of these traits. The first trial comprised 50 open-pollinated families in the central North Island, New Zealand. The second trial comprised 20 control-pollinated families in New South Wales, Australia. The genetic control of MfA, density, and MoE was found to be high in the corewood and moderate in the outerwood. Estimated genetic correlations suggested that early selection for most traits would be successful but could be carried out slightly earlier at the New Zealand site than at the Australian site. To maximize gain in the corewood, selection for MoE and MfA would be most effective around rings 4-8. There were no adverse correlations between MoE and MfA or density, implying that selection for MoE would also improve MfA and 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 it