MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236698098 · doi:10.1139/x99-178

Provenance hybridization in a diallel mating scheme of maritime pine (<i>Pinus pinaster</i>). I. Means and variance components

2000· article· en· W4236698098 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Harfouche, Antoine Kremer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPinus pinasterDiallel crossBiologyHybridProvenanceForestryTree breedingMediterranean climateEcologyBotanyGeographyWoody plant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth and survival from age 1 to 13 years, stem straightness, and resistance to Dioryctria splendidella Herr. Schaff. were assessed in 154 families belonging to interprovenance hybrids of maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Ait.). The hybrids were part of a full 10 × 10 diallel mating scheme. The 10 parental provenances belonging to the three major geographic groups of maritime pine (Atlantic, Mediterranean, and North African) were also included in the experiment as controls. The variance among families within an interprovenance hybrid combination represented only a minor part of the total variance, except for height and survival from age 1 to 3 and resistance to Dioryctria. General combining abilities were more important than specific combining abilities for all traits except for survival during the juvenile stages. General reciprocal effects were only significant for height at age 1 and stem straightness at age 8. A few hybrids between Atlantic and Mediterranean or North African provenances combined the good growth of the former provenance with the excellent stem straightness of the latter ones, suggesting new alternatives for tree improvement.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207