MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3157061116 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2021-0073

Contrasting root and shoot cold tolerance of a conifer with indeterminate growth

2021· article· en· W3157061116 on OpenAlexaffvenue
B. J. Hawkins, Kate McKeown, Julia M. Bayne, Lise van der Merwe, Samantha Robbins

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShootHardiness (plants)CupressaceaeFreezing toleranceBiologyBotanyCold toleranceFrost (temperature)HorticultureGeographyCultivar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yellow-cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis (D. Don) D.P. Little), a conifer in the Cupressaceae with indeterminate growth, is undergoing severe decline and mortality in southeast Alaska and the coast of northern and central British Columbia. This decline is attributed to cold damage to roots associated with climate warming and reduced snowpack. The cold tolerance of indeterminate conifer species is little studied, and less is known about root cold tolerance, as most studies focus on shoots. We compared the seasonal cycle of cold hardiness in roots and shoots of yellow-cedar seedlings from high- and low-elevation populations over 1 year. Freezing tolerance of shoots followed a typical seasonal cycle, with low levels of cold tolerance observed from April to October and moderate levels of cold tolerance observed in mid-winter. Differences in shoot cold tolerance among populations were consistent with the latitude and elevation of origin. In contrast, at the same freezing temperatures, roots of all seedlings had consistent, high levels of cold damage throughout the year.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics→French-language works237,207→