MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3142017401 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2021-0010

Preliminary assessments of shoot cold tolerance for American elm bred for enhanced tolerance to Dutch elm disease

2021· article· en· W3142017401 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paul G. Schaberg, Paula F. Murakami, Christopher F. Hansen, Gary J. Hawley, Christian O. Marks, James M. Slavicek

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHardiness (plants)Cold toleranceShootFreezing toleranceBiologyDutch elm diseaseHorticultureBotanyAgronomyCultivar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although Dutch elm disease (DED) is the primary threat to American elm (Ulmus americana L.), we hypothesized that shoot freezing injury may also limit tree productivity and survival in the north. We assessed shoot cold tolerance and field winter injury of American elm bred for DED tolerance planted in Lemington, Vermont. We tested for differences in cold tolerance associated with date, maternal DED tolerance sources, paternal sources from plant hardiness zones 5a, 6a, and 6b (determined using data from 1996 to 2005), and the interactions of these. Cold tolerance was greatest in the winter, followed by fall and then spring. For all dates, cold tolerance never differed between maternal DED tolerance sources. However, in mid-winter, paternal sources from zone 5a (coldest zone) were significantly more cold tolerant than sources from zone 6b (warmest zone), and sources from zone 6a were intermediate. Field freezing injury confirmed that shoots were only marginally cold tolerant relative to ambient temperature lows.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicForest ecology and management→French-language works237,207→