MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2283790333

Интродукция сосны скрученной в условиях Ленинградской области

2014· article· ru· W2283790333 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
В. М. Алексеев, Anatoly Zhigunov, А. С. Бондаренко, Д. С. Бурцев

Bibliographic record

VenueИзвестия высших учебных заведений. Лесной журнал · 2014
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPinus contortaSowingGerminationPinus <genus>BiologyPollenBotanyAgronomyEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper studied the growth of 22-year-old Pinus contorta stands in the Leningrad Region. These trees are half-sib offsprings of five different plus trees from their native habitat (Alberta, Canada). We have carried out a comparative analysis of sowing qualities of Pinus contorta seeds at primary introduction and local species ( Pinus sylvestris ). The research resulted in some preliminary conclusions about the level of adaptation of Pinus contorta at its introduction in the Leningrad Region. Since planting and up to the second age-class, the fastest height growth was observed in Pinus contorta offsprings from Gordondale community, and the fastest diameter growth was observed in the offsprings from Swan Hills. Seed germination in introduced species varied from 23.5 to 68.7 %. The best germination results were observed in the seeds of Pinus contorta offsprings from Grovedale hamlet. The amount of empty seeds in the offsprings under study varied between 14 and 41.8 %, suggesting the need for additional seed separation before sowing and further research on the properties of Pinus contorta pollen in Northwest Russia.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueИзвестия высших учебных заведений. Лесной журналSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207