MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321558932 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2012-0393

Optimizing stand management involving the effect of genetic gain: preliminary results for Scots pine in Finland

2013· article· en· W2321558932 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anssi Ahtikoski, Hannu Salminen, Risto Ojansuu, Jari Hynynen, Katri Kärkkäinen, Matti Haapanen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScots pineReforestationGenetic gainForest managementForestryProductivityPinus <genus>AgroforestryTree breedingAgricultural scienceGeographyEnvironmental scienceMathematicsGenetic variationEcologyEconomicsWoody plantBiologyDemographyBotanyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A solid starting point for assessing tree-improvement programs would be to determine the effect of genetic gain in economic terms at stand level. This paper presents a stand-level optimization analysis of the use of improved seed material in reforestation from the perspective of forest owners. We used a genetic algorithm to study the effects of optimized stand management on the bare land value (BLV) for both genetically improved and unimproved reforestation material, with increase in BLV (ΔBLV &gt; 0) representing the deployment benefit over the standard tree-improvement program. The stand-level optimization analysis was applied to a case representative of economic and climatic circumstances in Finland. The results show that the absolute increase in the BLV is distinctly higher in southern Finland than in central Finland, let alone northern Finland, regardless of the interest rate (3% or 4%) or genetic gain (3% or 15%). Sensitivity analyses revealed that market-related risks need to be taken into account carefully. Our tentative results provide new insight on the financial incentives for using genetically improved seed material in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stand establishment under varying climatic conditions, but the subject merits further investigation — with greater detail and a more systematic data structure.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 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

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207