MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255325168 · doi:10.1080/20013591099182

Genetic Modification of Short Rotation Popular Wood: Properties for Ethanol Fuel and Fiber Productions

2001· article· en· W4255325168 on OpenAlexaff
R. J. Dinus, P. Payne, Mitchell M. Sewell, Vincent L. Chiang, Gerald A. Tuskan

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Plant Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsBoise Cascade (Canada)
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsLigninCelluloseBiotechnologyTraitBiofuelBiologyFunctional genomicsSelective breedingGenetically modified organismPulp and paper industryGenomicsGeneBotanyGeneticsGenomeComputer scienceBiochemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Opportunities for matching wood chemical and physical properties to manufacturing and product requirements via genetic modification have long been recognized. Exploitation is now feasible due to advances in trait measurement, breeding, genetic mapping and marker, and genetic transformation technologies. With respect to classic selection and breeding of short-rotation poplars, genetic parameters are favorable for decreasing lignin content and increasing specific gravity, but less so for increasing cellulose content. Knowledge of functional genomics is expanding, as is that needed for eventual application of marker-aided breeding, trait dissection, candidate gene identification, and gene isolation. Research on gene transfer has yielded transgenic poplars with decreased lignin and increased cellulose contents, but otherwise normal growth and development. Until effective marker-aided breeding technologies become available, the most promising approach for enhancing ethanol fuel and fiber production and processing efficiencies centers on selecting and breeding poplars for high wood substance yields and genetically transforming them for decreased lignin and increased cellulose contents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Plant SciencesSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207