MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795283092 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0407

Efficiency of early selection in <i>Calycophyllum spruceanum</i> and <i>Guazuma crinita</i>, two fast-growing timber species of the Peruvian Amazon

2018· article· en· W2795283092 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonathan Cornelius, Roger Alejandro Pinedo-Ramírez, Carmen Sotelo Montes, Julio Ugarte-Guerra, John C. Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConsortium of International Agricultural Research CentersInstituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y AlimentariaDepartment for International DevelopmentUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Amazon rainforestRevenueNet present valueAgroforestryEconomicsBiologyComputer scienceProduction (economics)EcologyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bolaina (Guazuma crinita Mart., Malvaceae) and capirona (Calycophyllum spruceanum (Benth.) Hook. f. ex K. Schum., Rubiaceae) are fast-growing Amazonian timber trees. In Peru, they are increasingly being used in agroforestry systems and plantations, and interest in developing improved germplasm is growing. However, tree improvement incurs both direct costs and interest costs on investments; because of this, early selection is of interest. We examine the efficiency of early selection 13 or 17 months after field trial establishment. These are compared with selection after 49 or 53 months using two efficiency metrics: one based on discounted response to selection per unit of present value of cost, and the second on net discounted revenues, using discount rates of 5%, 10%, and 15%. Our metrics differed from those used in previous studies by taking into account direct costs, as well as costs of capital. We found that in most scenarios, early selection was attractive, partly due to direct cost savings. We conclude that in evaluating the efficiency of early selection, lack of consideration of direct costs may produce erroneous results. We also explore some general implications of the results.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207