Tree species of concern in New Brunswick, Canada. II. Guidelines for conservation of genetic resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guidelines were developed by the New Brunswick Forest Gene Conservation Working Group for conserving genetic resources of four native tree species in New Brunswick. Gene conservation guidelines for three of these species aim to maintain sufficient gene pools of known or putatively resistant stock to retain or develop the potential for restoration. Natural populations of American beech (Fagus grandifolia) are known to have genotypes resistant to the beech scale at low frequencies. Gene conservation approaches include in situ and ex situ measures, including resistance breeding. White elm (Ulmus americana) demonstrates a degree of resistance to Dutch elm disease (DED), and will benefit from a mixture of in situ and ex situ conservation measures. Resistance to butternut canker has not yet been demonstrated in populations of butternut (Juglans cinerea), but ex situ conservation of putatively resistant genotypes will be of increasing importance as the frequency of butternut canker escalates. Bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), threatened by small population size, habitat loss, and ongoing development, requires primarily in situ conservation and restoration efforts. Key words: American beech, bur oak, butternut, disease resistance, ex situ, gene conservation guidelines, genetic resources, in situ, restoration, white elm
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".