MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106561367 · doi:10.1139/b01-043

The mating system in natural populations of western redcedar (<i>Thuja plicata</i>)

2001· article· en· W2106561367 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lisa O’Connell, Frédérique Viard, John H. Russell, Kermit Ritland

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany and Plant Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcrossingThujaBiologyPopulationInbreedingNatural population growthSeed orchardMating systemBotanyEcologyZoologyMatingDemographyPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Outcrossing rates and the correlation of paternity were estimated in six natural populations of western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn. ex D. Don) in southwestern British Columbia. Over 3000 offspring were assayed, as progeny arrays, for the only sufficiently polymorphic isozyme locus in this species, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase. Estimates of population outcrossing rates ranged from 0.173 to 1.257 and averaged 0.715 ± 0.045 (mean ± SD). Estimates of the correlation of paternity generally did not differ from zero. Six of the seven outcrossing estimates (one population was surveyed in two consecutive years) were higher than a previous seed orchard study. However, these outcrossing rates are still lower than those estimated for most other species of conifers. Population outcrossing rates also showed wide variation, and this variation is discussed in terms of ecological and phenological differences among populations.Key words: Cupressaceae, conifers, isozymes, outcrossing rate, inbreeding.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicBotany and Plant Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207