Flowering phenology and seed viability of native and non-native poplars in north-central Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Alberta, Canada, the provincial government currently restricts the establishment of hybrid poplars to private land or small research plantings on Crown lands, because of the unknown risks associated with using non-native trees. Industry is interested in utilizing hybrid poplars on a larger scale for fibre production and reclamation. This interest has driven the need to better understand the genetic risks associated with the deployment of these non-native trees within a matrix of natural poplar stands and agricultural plantings. The first step to understanding the potential risks associated with the use of non-native poplars is to assess flowering phenology and seedling development of both native and non-native poplars growing in the same region. Flowering data were collected and graphed for 38 clones of native Populus balsamifera, 20 clones of native P. tremuloides, and 13 non-native poplar clones (seven hybrid poplar clones and six P. davidiana seedlings) in north-central Alberta. Based on the overlapping flowering patterns and the development of normal seedlings, some potential for hybridization between native and non-native poplars exists. Key words: hybridization, hybrid poplars, Populus balsamifera, P. davidiana, P. tremuloides, risk
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".