Resistance of Canada Yew (<em>Taxus canadensis</em>) Branch Wood to Two Wood Decay Fungi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood of the larger yews (Taxus spp.) is reported to be decay-resistant, but little is known about the decay resistance of Canada Yew (Taxus canadensis Marsh.) wood. Branch wood from Canada Yew was compared to branch wood from Northern Red Oak (Quercus rubra L.) and Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis L.) in a standard laboratory decay test to evaluate its resistance to decay by two decay fungi. Canada Yew was shown to be significantly more resistant to decay by Gloeophyllum trabeum (Pers.) Murr. (a brown rot fungus) and Trametes versicolor (L.: Fr.) Quél. (a white rot fungus) than Northern Red Oak (P ≤ 0.05). Canada Yew was shown to be equal to Eastern White Cedar in resistance to decay by G. trabeum and more than twice as resistant to decay by Trametes versicolor (P ≤ 0.05). These results may have relevance for survival of Canada Yew, which is under pressure from browsing by White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".