MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077364441 · doi:10.5558/tfc2015-011

Forest genomics research and development in Canada: Priorities for developing an economic framework

2015· article· en· W2077364441 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ilga Porth, Gary Bull, Suborna Ahmed, Yousry A. El‐Kassaby, Mark Boyland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForest productGenomicsBusinessAgricultureEnvironmental resource managementForest managementEnvironmental planningGeographyNatural resource economicsAgroforestryBiotechnologyEcologyBiologyEnvironmental scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest genomics is a relatively recent research field and is often poorly understood both by the public and forest managers. Genomics in forestry, an expansion of forest biotechnology, seeks to develop generalized technologies for use in industrial plantations and/or natural forests as well as within process optimization, product development and international trade facilitation. With such tools it is possible to address formerly intractable issues such as understanding the underpinnings of complex traits for conservation management purposes, improved use of forest trees as carbon sinks, feedstock for biofuels and “green chemistry” through deeper understanding and effective utilization of forests’ natural variation. Diverse end-users could benefit from genomics tools; for example, real-time detection and mapping of known and novel pathogens along with risk assessments to protect forest nurseries and natural forests from invasive pathogens and reduce economic losses associated with diseases. Since 2001, there has been approximately $123 million invested in Canadian forest genomics research; we thought it would be helpful to summarize projects in Canada and the USA and to identify research priorities and potential economic implications by: (a) developing a robust typology of forest sector genomics research relevant to Canadian application; (b) categorizing each initiative for its application potential (commercial, noncommercial); and, (c) demonstrating with silvicultural gain, insect resistance, and wood composition themes the application of modeling and economic analysis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207