Frost hardiness, height, and dormancy of 15 short-day, nursery-treated interior spruce seed lots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fifteen seed lots, five each from natural-stand, seed-orchard, and full-sib collections, of interior spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss, Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm., and their naturally occurring hybrids) were sown in February 1993. One half of each seed lot received an ambient photoperiod (control) treatment, while the other half got a blackout (short-day) treatment. All seedlings were grown under ambient photoperiod except during the 17 days of blackout. Frost hardiness assessments were done between July and May. Blackout treatment was effective in regulating height and promoting frost hardiness in all seed lots, particularly vigorous ones. Seed lots originating from high latitude or elevation were more frost hardy both at fall lift and spring planting. Full-sib seed lots from similar latitude displayed no elevational frost-hardiness trend. Blackout treatment promoted seedling dormancy (estimated with days to bud break) at lift, but it had little or no effect on dormancy at planting. Seedling dormancy and frost hardiness were acquired and lost differently, suggesting that they are independent physiological processes. Blackout treatment significantly reduced new roots at planting in all lots. This could retard early field performance and negate the apparent utility of blackout treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".