Protocol for rating seed orchard seedlots in British Columbia: quantifying genetic gain anddiversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seed orchards are the principal delivery method for genetically selected materials to operational reforestation programmes in British Columbia, Canada. Orchard parents are assigned breeding values for the improved trait (e.g. stem volume growth). The genetic quality of orchard seedlots is rated annually by weighting the breeding value of each orchard parent by its proportional gamete contribution (male and female) to the seedlot. Parental gamete contributions are also used to calculate an effective population size to quantify genetic diversity in a seedlot. Adaptation and genetic representation of populations are carefully considered at orchard establishment to ensure minimum seedlot standards are met. The calculation of genetic worth also considers the gamete contribution of non-orchard pollen parents, and is lowered for the negative effects of contaminating pollen and raised for the beneficial effects of supplemental pollen. The protocols for collecting information required to rate seedlots vary by species and location, but the calculations for estimating genetic worth, pollen contamination and genetic diversity are the same. Both the protocols and the formulae used to calculate the genetic quality of orchard seed lots are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.009 |
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".