MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148369858 · doi:10.1139/x08-159

Differences in wood decay by Heterobasidion parviporum in cloned Norway spruce (Picea abies)

2009· article· en· W2148369858 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yohama Puentes-Rodriguez, Ane Zubizarreta Gerendiain, Ari Pappinen, Heli Peltola, Pertti Pulkkinen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPicea abiesPithBark (sound)BotanyBiologyHorticultureWoody plantEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In forest breeding, growth has been used as the main selection trait in Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst.), whereas wood properties or resistance to pathogens have been taken as secondary traits. We aimed to investigate, in laboratory conditions, the rate of wood decay caused by Heterobasidion parviporum (Fr.) Niemelä & Korhonen (strains 5 and 7) in 20 Norway spruce clones. We also studied if, on average, growth, wood density, and fibre properties differed in the most and least decayed clones as well as from pith to bark. After 6 months of incubation, strain 7 effected significantly higher wood decay than strain 5 (mean 16.9% and 1.7%, respectively). The difference between the five most decayed and five least decayed clones by strain 7 was also statistically significant (P < 0.05). Moreover, regardless of clone or strain, the wood decay was highest near the pith and lowest near the bark, which is the opposite for wood density and fibre length and width. However, neither wood density nor fibre properties explained, statistically, the differences in average wood decay and decay from pith to bark. On the other hand, we could identify clones that simultaneously provided high wood quantity and relatively high wood density and low decay rate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207