MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110708441

Yields of willow biomass crops across a range of sites in North America

2011· article· en· W2110708441 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Timothy A. Volk, Lawrence P. Abrahamson, Kimberly D. Cameron, Philip J. Castellano, Tim Corbin, Eric S. Fabio, Gregg A. Johnson, Y Kuzovkina-Eischen, Michel Labrecque, R O Miller, Lawrence B. Smart, K. W. Staver, G. R. Stanosz, Ken Van Rees

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillowBiomass (ecology)Yield (engineering)AgronomyShort rotation forestryPerennial plantChristian ministryShort rotation coppiceBiologyAgroforestryGeographyWoody plantCoppicingBotany
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yield is an important factor in determining the economic feasibility of willow biomass crops. Over the past 18 years a series of yield trials have been established across North America with older clones from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the University of Toronto and new genotypes from the SUNY-ESF breeding programme. One trial that has been harvested four times showed that the yield of four commercial clones increased by 23.0 % from the first to second rotation and by 30.8 % from the first to fourth rotation. Quantifying these changes is important when modeling production and cash flow of these perennial systems. Across all yield trials, those with new willow clones have produced 38 % more biomass than trials with the older clones. The top three new clones in each of the nine trials that have been harvested produced a mean yield of 11.5 odt ha-1 yr-1, which was 13.9 % better than the three older reference clones in these trials. Key words: Breeding, Salix, short rotation woody crops, yield

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)0.000
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 score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations61
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207