Breeding objectives for three silvicultural regimes of radiata pine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A generic vertically integrated firm, comprising a production forest, a sawmill, and a pulp mill was modelled under three silvicultural regimes: direct to pulp, intermediate (includes production thinning), and intensive (includes production thinnings and pruning). The harvest age traits included in the breeding objective were total volume (m3/ha) and average wood density (kg/m3). Economic values for each trait were calculated as the difference in discounted profit for a unit marginal increase of volume or density, and expressed as relative weights to facilitate comparisons between the objectives. The methodology was applied to a Chilean case study using representative economic and production circumstances. The breeding objectives so derived were 1vol + 2.4den for pulp, 1vol + 1.1den for intermediate, and 1vol + 1.2den for the intensive regime, where vol and den are the breeding values for volume and density, respectively. The firm was profitable under all regimes. Genetic correlations between the objectives for each regime were higher than 0.9, indicating that a single breeding strategy with objective 1vol + 1.5den could be adopted, with almost no loss of genetic gain relative to selecting for a particular silvicultural regime.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".