MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115930771 · doi:10.1139/x10-035

Genetic control of kraft pulp yield in<i>Eucalyptus globulus</i>

2010· article· en· W2115930771 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Desmond J. Stackpole, René E. Vaillancourt, Geoffrey M. Downes, C. E. Harwood, BM Potts

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsEucalyptus globulusGenetic correlationPulp (tooth)HeritabilityBiologyKraft processEucalyptusGenetic variationGenetic variabilityPulpwoodEucalyptus nitensAgronomyBotanyEcologyKraft paperPulp and paper industryGenotypeGeneticsMedicineDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulp yield is an important breeding objective for Eucalyptus globulus Labill., but evaluation of its genetic control and genetic correlations with other traits has been limited by its high assessment cost. We used near infrared spectroscopy to study genetic variation in pulp yield and other traits in a 16-year-old E. globulus trial. Pulp yield was predicted for 2165 trees from 467 open-pollinated families from 17 geographic subraces. Significant differences between subraces and between families within subraces were detected for all traits. The high pulp yield of southern Tasmanian subraces suggested that their economic worth was previously underestimated. The narrow-sense heritability of pulp yield was medium (0.40). The significant positive genetic correlation between pulp yield and diameter (0.52) was at odds with the generally neutral values reported. The average of the reported genetic correlations between pulp yield and basic density (0.50) was also at odds with our nonsignificant estimate. Pulp yield of the subraces increased with increasing latitude, producing a negative correlation with density (–0.58). The absence of genetic correlations within subraces between pulp yield and density suggests that the correlation may be an independent response of the two traits to the same or different selection gradients that vary with latitude.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

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

Citations39
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207