MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155561116 · doi:10.1093/forestry/77.4.325

Effect of growth rate on wood properties of genetically improved Sitka spruce

2004· article· en· W2155561116 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A.K. Livingston

Bibliographic record

VenueForestry An International Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySowingHorticulturePopulationGrowth rateAgronomyBotanyMathematicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the wood properties of 24-year-old Sitka spruce ( Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.) progenies with highly contrasting growth rates. The progenies were established as part of a breeding programme to improve growth rate and stem form. Trees from three progenies were selected with a high growth rate relative to an unimproved control of directly imported material from the Queen Charlotte Islands (QCI), British Columbia, Canada. Trees from a further three progenies were selected that displayed a similar growth rate to the QCI control. At the time of sampling, the fastgrowing progenies had a mean volume gain over the QCI and slow-growing progenies of ~70 per cent. Trees from the fast-growing progenies were found to have significantly larger branches, less latewood, and more compression wood in comparison with the QCI control and the slow-growing progenies. On the other hand, trees from the fast-growing progenies had a smaller grain angle than the QCI control. While fast-growing progenies had lower wood density than the control, this was not significantly different. These findings suggest that, in general, the criteria used to select Sitka spruce trees in the forest as potential candidates for the breeding population would indeed lead to significant improvements of the growth performance and grain angle from improved planting stock. Breeders need to be aware, however, of possible negative influences of such selection criteria on other stem and wood properties known to influence wood strength.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestry An International Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207