MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902386729 · doi:10.1093/wjaf/15.3.129

Cold Hardiness Testing for Douglas-Fir Tree Improvement Programs: Guidelines for a Simple, Robust, and Inexpensive Screening Method

2000· article· en· W2902386729 on OpenAlex
Thimmappa S. Anekonda, W. T. Adams, Sally N. Aitken

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Applied Forestry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHardiness (plants)Douglas firComputer scienceForestryBiologyHorticultureGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Operational methods are needed for screening genotypes in breeding programs for adaptive traits. In this article, we present a detailed description of one procedure for screening improved coastal Douglas-fir seedlings and saplings for cold hardiness, based on research results of the Pacific Northwest Tree Improvement Research Cooperative. Artificial freeze testing of detached shoots from genetic tests, followed by visual scoring of injury, has proved to be an efficient, reliable, and cost-effective method of screening large numbers of genotypes. Relevant research results are summarized, and practical details of this methodology are presented for straightforward implementation by Douglas-fir breeders and researchers. West. J. Appl. For. 15(3):129-136.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.248 · 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