MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2208376043 · doi:10.1515/sg-2010-0027

Realized Genetic Gains in Coastal Douglas-fir in British Columbia: Implications for Growth and Yield Projections

2010· article· en· W2208376043 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Stoehr, Kimon T. Bird, Gord Nigh, Jack Woods, Alvin D. Yanchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueSilvae genetica/Silvae Genetica · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDiverse scientific research topics
Canadian institutionsForest Genetics CouncilGovernment of British Columbia
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsDouglas firBiologyGenetic gainRandomized block designTree (set theory)Yield (engineering)HorticultureMathematicsBotanyGenetic variationForestryGeographyCombinatoricsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Realized genetic gain trials for coastal Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) at five different sites with four different spacings were assessed at age 12 to compare early gain predictions in growth from small plot progeny test designs to those obtained from large block designs. Seedlings from three genetic levels, i.e., local wild-stand controls (WS), a mid-gain seedlot (MG), and a top-cross seedlot (TC) were planted in 12 × 12 tree plots with two replications at spacings of 1.6 m, 2.3 m, 2.9 m and 4.0 m. Two replications of a “single-tree plot” design at 2.9 m spacing for the three genetic levels (30 trees per genetic level) were also established, to allow for more detailed comparisons between single-tree and multiple-tree plot means. Although these trials are still relatively young, trees in the closest spacing had the highest levels of mortality with the TC trees having the highest rate of survival. Height gains in the block trials ranged from 10.4% to 16.1% for MG and TC trees, respectively, and were relatively close to the predicted values; however, volume (individual tree and volume/ha) gains exceeded expectations. Effects of genetic entry on height at age 12 were highly significant, while spacing, genetic entry by spacing, and genetic entry by test site interactions were not significant. We also compared height growth over the first 12 years to growth estimated from the “Bruce height growth model” for Douglas-fir and found that on four of the five test sites our MG and TC seedlings follow the expected height growth trajectories.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSilvae genetica/Silvae GeneticaSame topicDiverse scientific research topicsFrench-language works237,207