Reaction to release treatments and distinctive attributes of butternut that promote resistance to the canker caused by<i>Ophiognomonia clavigignenti-juglandacearum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examines the impact of light and tree attributes of butternuts, including bark phenotype, on their health. Some butternuts were released by thinning the crowns of neighbouring trees in two locations in Québec, while others were not. Various butternut characteristics related to their health that had been collected by a partner in the Montérégie region are also analysed. The release treatment did not have any significant impact on any health variables. However, their location, the diameter increments before releasing trees and twig collection on some butternuts had a significant impact on some of these variables. For the butternuts of the Montérégie region, their position in the canopy had a significant impact on main stem damage and on the putative resistance to the canker caused by Ophiognomonia clavigignenti-juglandacearum; trees from the upper storey were healthier. Dieback of dark and deep furrowed bark phenotype butternuts was significantly lower than that of the light, shallow furrowed bark ones. Butternuts with a greater annual increase in basal area had better vigour. This was greater in the upper canopy and among the deep furrowed bark butternuts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".